Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Vasantiben Wd/O Hareshji Bachuji ... on 31 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4181 of 2024
================================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
VASANTIBEN WD/O HARESHJI BACHUJI THAKOR & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ESHA S BHAVSAR FOR MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the
Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 31/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant -
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC), being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
31.07.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Main), Banaskantha at Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.21 of 2022.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 That on 15.12.2021, the deceased Hareshji Bachuji
Thakor was driving tractor and going to Mota Jampur from
village Runi and he was driving the said tractor slowly and on
correct side of the road. When the said tractor was passing
near the boundary of village Khariya, near hotel Jai Hinglaj, at
that time, the driver of the S.T. bus bearing registration No. GJ-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
18-Z-3924 came driving the said bus at a very high and
excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner, endangering
human life and while overtaking, the driver of the S.T. bus
dashed against the tractor of the deceased. As a result of
which, the tractor turned turtle and the deceased came below
the wheels and he died on the spot. Therefore, legal heirs of
the deceased have filed claim petition for getting
compensation.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia,
appearing for the appellant - GSRTC and learned advocate Ms.
Esha S. Bhavsar for the respondents - original claimants.
4. The present appeal is filed mainly on the ground that the
learned Tribunal ought to have considered the deceased
Hareshji Bachuji Thakor, tractor diver as equally negligent in
causing the road accident, instead of 100% negligence to the
driver of the S.T. bus.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia mainly
argued that the learned Tribunal should have appreciated the
fact that the deceased, who was driving the tractor, at that
relevant time, was going ahead and applied sudden break,
resulting into collision. She would submit that the deceased,
who was a tractor driver, was required to take care for not
applying sudden break without any reason on the public road
but, without taking proper care and following road discipline,
the deceased tractor driver applied sudden break and the S.T.
bus which was coming behind the tractor could not be stopped
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
and due to sudden stopping of the tractor, the accident took
place. She would further submit that taking the scene of the
accident from the FIR and Panchnama, it is sufficiently proved
that both the drivers were equally negligent in causing the
road accident and therefore, she would submit to take up the
negligency of the deceased to 50% and reduce the
compensation to that extent, by allowing this appeal.
6. Learned advocate Ms. Esha Bhavsar, appearing for
the other side, on the other hand, taking this Court through the
position of the vehicle stated in the Panchnama of the spot,
indicates that if the accident had taken place due to sudden
application of the break by the tractor driver, the face of the
S.T. bus must have received the damages but, in the present
case, the S.T. bus received damages on the left rear side of the
bus near the climbing gate or near the gate of the bus, which
shows that the S.T. bus while over taking the tractor, crushed
with the cultivator attached with the tractor and as a result of
such crushing, the tractor turned turtle and taken the life of
the driver Hareshji Bachuji Thakor. Looking to this fact of the
accident emerging from the documentary evidence, the
learned Tribunal has rightly passed the judgment and award of
attributing 100% negligence to the S.T. bus driver. This
argument is canvassed to dismiss the appeal.
7. I have heard the learned advocates for both the
sides and applied anxious thoughts to the rival submissions
and also gone through the Record & Proceedings and evidence
on record again. What could be firstly noticeable is that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
S.T. bus driver having been served, did not enter to contest the
claim petition for filing written submissions. Secondly, he did
not enter the witness box to counter the evidence given by the
claimants. These two aspects indicate that the claimants have
discharged their burden to prove that the driver of the S.T. bus
was fully negligible in causing the road accident. More over,
what could be noticeable is that the FIR of the accident is filed
against the S.T. bus driver. After investigation of the offence
registered under Sections 279A and 304 of the IPC, the
Investigating Officer has also filed charge-sheet against the
S.T. bus driver. Correctness of FIR or filing of the charge-sheet
was never questioned either by the driver of the S.T. bus or by
the GSRTC.
8. In case of Vimla Devi vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd., reported in [2019] 2 SCC 186, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while drawing adverse inference for the driver
not entering into witness box, held as under :
"30. Fourth, so far as the driver and owner of the Truck were
concerned, both remained ex parte since inception and, therefore,
neither contested the appellants' claim petition nor entered into
the witness box to rebut the allegations of the appellants made
in the claim petition and the evidence. An adverse inference against
both could be drawn."
9. Therefore, while drawing the adverse inference
against the driver and GSRTC for not leading the evidence of
the S.T. bus driver, learned Tribunal has assessed full
negligency on the S.T bus driver.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
10. Another contention of learned advocate Ms. Sejal
Mandavia that the tractor driver had applied sudden break, the
S.T. bus driver was going behind could not avert the collision.
Applying of the sudden break on the tractor is one of the major
reason to cause the road accident. Rule 23 of Road Regulations
reads as under :
"Rule 23. Distance from vehicles in front.-
The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall
keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid
collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop."
11. Therefore, the vehicle which is coming in behind
has to keep sufficient distance from the vehicle going ahead to
avoid collision, if the vehicle going ahead suddenly slow down
or stops. Thus, again it was the duty of the S.T. bus driver to
keep sufficient safe distance to observe the road discipline. In
either of the circumstances, the adverse inference is calling to
be drawn against the S.T. bus driver. Learned advocate Ms.
Sejal Mandavia could not point out any other fact or
circumstance or evidence on record which could help the case
of GSRTC to mark the deceased fully negligible for causing the
road accident.
12. No other and further submissions are made. For the
reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is unsustainable,
deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
Dolly
