Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Geetaben Pranbhai Thakor on 13 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1393 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1393 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
GEETABEN PRANBHAI THAKOR & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 13/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate has appeared on
behalf of Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate on record for
the appellant - Corporation and Mr. Vishal C. Mehta, learned
advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 6 -
original claimants.
2. Noticing grounds urged in the appeal, the appeal is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
taken up for hearing at the admission stage.
3. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of the original
respondent no.2, challenging the judgment and award dated
26th July 2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux), Deesa, in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.49 of
2018. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal
has partly allowed the claim petition referred by the present
respondent nos. 2 to 6 - original claimants under Section 166
of the Act, 1988. The Tribunal has held the claimants entitled
to compensation of an amount of Rs.12,42,000/- with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum and proportionate costs from the
date of claim petition till its realization, to be realized from
the opponent no.2 - the present appellant. The Tribunal has
further exonerated the original opponent no.1 i.e. the owner
of the second vehicle Chakda involved in the accident as the
Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that no negligence is
attributed by the driver of the said vehicle.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant at the
outset has submitted that the appellant corporation has
assailed the impugned judgment and awarded mainly on the
ground of negligency and the quantum of compensation
awarded. On the issue of negligency, learned advocate had
invited my attention to the findings and reasons assigned by
the tribunal and has submitted that merely because the ST
bus was a large vehicle, the Tribunal could not have jumped to
the conclusion that it was the sole negligence of the driver of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
ST bus towards the occurrence of accident. He has further
submitted that looking to the panchnama of the place of
accident produced on record at Exh.24, it is evident that the
driver of the Chakda was equally negligent towards the
occurrence of accident.
4.1 On the issue of quantum of compensation, learned
advocate has submitted that no documentary evidence has
been brought on record to establish the fact that the deceased
was earning monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. He has therefore
submitted that on both the aforesaid grounds the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is required to be
modified.
5. Per contra learned advocate appearing for the
respondent nos.2 to 6 - original claimants has objected to the
aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate for the
appellant. Learned advocate has invited my attention to the
judgment and award dated 1st June 2024 passed by the Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) & 6 th Addl. District Judge
Banaskantha at Deesa in MACP no. 161 of 2016 in the case of
Sanjaybhai Parbatbhai Thakor. By referring to the aforesaid
judgment, learned advocate has pointed-out that in respect of
the same accident the injured claimant had approached the
Tribunal who was a co-passenger in the said vehicle Chakda.
The panchanama of the place of accident as produced on
record in the present case at Exh.24 was produced for
consideration in the said claim petition at Exh.26. The
Tribunal upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
record has held the appellant - corporation solely liable to pay
compensation by holding that there was no negligence on part
of the driver of vehicle chakda and the accident had occurred
due to sole negligence of the driver of the ST bus.
5.1 He had further pointed-out that the aforesaid order has
attained finality inasmuch as no appeal is filed by the
appellant corporation in the aforesaid case. He had further
invited my attention to the payment order whereby the entire
awarded amount has been deposited with the Tribunal which
has been further directed to be released and disbursed in
favour of the claimants. By making aforesaid submission,
learned advocate has submitted that the corporation cannot
be permitted to agitate the issue of negligence inasmuch as
they have accepted the aforesaid findings and reasons of the
Tribunal in the cognate matter.
5.2 On the issue of lumpsum compensation, learned
advocate has submitted that no error can be found with the
approach of the Tribunal in accepting the case of the claimant
while treating the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.5,000/-, as according to him, though no cogent
documentary evidence were brought on record in this regard,
however, even otherwise, noticing the prevailing rates of
minimum wages, the Tribunal has rightly adopted the
guesswork and has accepted the case of the claimants by
considering monthly income of deceased as Rs.5,000/-. By
making aforesaid submission, learned advocate has submitted
that no grounds are there for consideration in the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
appeal, he has therefore urged the Court to summarily dismiss
the appeal at the admission stage.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having examined their submissions in
light of the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, it
would be appropriate to reproduce the same as under :-
(6.2) The respective claimant no.1 namely
Geetaben Pranbhai Thakor in her testimony
vide Exh.18 has categorically supported the
facts mentioned in the claim petition and
stated that this accident has occurred due to
wrongful act of the driver of the vehicle
S.T.Bus and it is an admitted fact that the said
claimant is not an eye-witness of this accident.
Therefore, her evidence is not reliable
evidence to determine the point of negligence.
(6.3) Exh.23 is the police-complaint which is
lodged by one Mr. Nareshbhai Jayantibhai
Bhavabhai Thakor who was one of the traveler
of the vehicle Chhakda at the time of accident
means he is an eye-witness of this accident. In
the said police complaint, only negligence of
the vehicle S.T.Bus has been pleaded and
numbers of both vehicles have been
mentioned. Hence, the said police complaint
is supported to the facts of this claim petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
(6.4) Exh.24 is the panchnama of place of
accident and from the said document, it prima
facie appears that it is the case of head on
collision and due to the said accident, both
vehicles got damaged more particularly from
the front side. In the said document, it is
specifically stated that the width of road is
around 20 ft. and the vehicle S.T.Bus dashed
on the empty side of the vehicle Chhakda.
Hence, looking to the situation of the vehicles,
it prima facie appears that the vehicle S.T.Bus
dashed with the front part of the vehicle
Chhakda after coming into the wrong side.
Hence, the police complaint and panchnama
are sufficient evidence to prove this accident
and these documents are corroborated to the
facts of this claim petition. Further more, S.T
bus being a large vehicle, more caution is
required by the driver of large vehicle to see
that, no accident is caused by vehicle under
his control.
(6.5) It is pertaining to note that on other side,
the Opponent no.2 has not produced any kind
of evidence in form of documentary as well as
oral against the facts of this claim petition.
The opponent no.2 has also not tried to call
it's driver to depose against the facts of this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
claim petition, which lead to draw adverse
inference against the opponent no.2 .
Furthermore, the vehicle S.T.Bus is a big
vehicle and if it's driver would have taken due
care and caution to drive his vehicle then,
such accident could have been avoided.
Hence, the adverse inference is drawn against
the driver of vehicle S.T.Bus.
(6.6) Further, it is settled by catena of judicial
pronouncement that while deciding the point
of negligence, it has to be born in mind that
the negligence is required to be proved in
claim petition u/s 166 of the Act only on the
touchstone of the preponderance of
probability and not beyond doubt. Above
referred ratio is laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of (i) Bimla Devi v/s
H.R.T.C., reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and
(ii) Parmeshwari Devi v/s Amir Chand,
reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635. Hence, in
view of above discussion and considering the
police complaint, panchnama and oral
evidence of the claimant no.1, this Tribunal
hold 100% negligence on the part of the
driver of vehicle S.T.Bus for happening of this
alleged accident.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
7. Thus, the Tribunal upon appreciation of the police
complaint produced on record at Exh.23 and the panchnama
of place of accident produced on record at Exh.24, has arrived
at a conclusion that the ST bus had dashed with the front part
of the vehicle chakda after coming from the wrong side. The
Court has formed the opinion based on appreciation of the
evidence. The Tribunal has also noticed that the ST bus was a
large vehicle and therefore more caution was expected from
the driver of the large vehicle. The Tribunal has also noticed
that the driver of the corporation has not entered into the
witness box and therefore had raised adverse inference
against the opponent no.2.
8. In the opinion of this Court, in absence of any
contradictions being pointed-out by the learned advocate for
the appellant as regards the aforesaid findings, no error can
be found with the approach of the opinion formed by the
Tribunal holding the appellant corporation solely responsible
for the negligence towards the occurrence of accident. As
rightly pointed-out by the learned advocate for the
respondent, even otherwise, in absence of any challenge being
made on the aforesaid issue by accepting the judgment and
award in the cognate matter, it does not lie in the mouth of
the appellant corporation to agitate such issue in the present
appeal arising out of same accident.
9. As regards the quantum of the compensation is
concerned, indisputably the age of the deceased is found as
39 years. The only issue which is raised in the present appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
as regards the computation of the amount of compensation is
concerned is on the ground that no evidence has been brought
on record with regard to the income of the deceased being
treated as Rs.5,000/- per month. On close perusal of the
findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal as regards
income part is concerned, the claimants have produced on
record the certificate issued by Chairman of Gajdinpura Milk
Produce Cooperative Society Ltd., reflecting the membership
of the deceased at Exh.27. The Tribunal has discarded the
aforesaid evidence of the claimant by holding that it merely
corroborates the fact that the deceased was a member of the
said society and therefore has found the said evidence being
not sufficient to examine the issue of income of deceased.
10. As regards the other second contention raised, the
Tribunal has noticed that no abstract of agricultural lands,
bills of purchasing and selling of agricultural produce,
certificate of selling of milk in the dairy or certificate of
number of cattles have been brought on record to prove the
income of the deceased. The Tribunal has also noticed that no
other witnesses have been examined to establish their case.
However, noticing the fact that the accident relates to year
2016, the Tribunal has done guesswork and has adopted
Rs.5,000/- as the proper monthly income of the deceased. It is
an undisputed fact that the deceased was aged 39 years and it
has been deposed before the Court by the claimant that the
deceased was doing agriculture work as well as cattle rearing
work. Looking to the nature of work of the deceased, in
absence of availability of direct evidence, looking to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
benevolent legislation, the Tribunal are vested with the
jurisdiction to do the guesswork and to adopt the reasonable
amount as the income of the deceased. Though the certificate
produced on record at Exh.27 has not been accepted as a
proof of the evidence to decide the income of the deceased,
however, it certainly corroborates the case of the claimant
that the deceased was engaged in agriculture and cattle
rearing activity. Noticing the aforesaid fact, in the opinion of
this Court, the Tribunal has rightly considered the amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month as the income of the deceased in
absence of any cogent evidence regarding proof of income.
The aforesaid income is not exorbitant looking to the nature of
the work of the deceased.
11. Except for the aforesaid two grounds raised in the
appeal, no other submissions have been made by learned
advocate for the appellant. Hence, in the opinion of this Court,
no case is made-out which calls for interference of this Court
in the present appeal. The appeal therefore does not deserves
admission.
12. The accident relates to the year 2016. The claimants
have successfully established their case and are found entitled
for the amount of compensation. The appellant corporation is
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with
proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the Tribunal
within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this
order. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, it shall be open
for the Tribunal to proceed with the release and disbursement
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1393/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/06/2025
undefined
of the awarded amount strictly as per the guidelines of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is summarily
dismissed. In view of the main appeal being dismissed, the
connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.)
AMAR RATHOD...
