Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/968/1991 3/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 968 of 1991
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
G
S R T CORPORATION - Appellant(s)
Versus
BAIJIBEN
RAIJIBHAI CHAUHAN & 7 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MS. ARCHANA
PATEL for MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) :
1,
MR SANJAY M AMIN for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5,7 - 8.
None for
Respondent(s) : 6,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
Date
: 23/06/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Challenge
in this Appeal filed under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 is to the correctness of the judgment and award dated 30.4.1991
rendered in MACP No. 1297 of 1986 by the MACT(Auxi.), Kheda at
Nadiad, by which the claim petition preferred by the Respondents
original claimants to recover the compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- on
account of untimely demise of Raijibhai Somabhai in a vehicular
accident has been partly allowed and thereby the claimants have been
awarded total compensation of Rs.1,35,720/- together with interest @
12% pa from the date of filing of application for a period of three
months. The award further stipulates that if the amount was paid
thereafter, the Appellant shall pay interest @15% pa from the date
of filing the application till realization.
On
3.1.1986, Raijibhai Somabhai was going in a rickshaw along with
Bhaijibhai Andersinh and Dipabhai Samantbhai from village
Sdharamkhoniya to Dakor. Near Bhavans college, the rickshaw went
out of order and therefore the driver was repairing the rickshaw on
the road and Raijibhai was standing near the rickshaw. At that
time, ST Bus bearing registration no. 7938 came there in an
excessive speed and hit Raijibhai and he was thrown on the road.
The rear wheel of the bus passed over the waist of Raijibhai and he
died instantaneously. Therefore, according to the claimants, the
accident was a result of rash and negligent driving on part of the
driver of the ST Corporation.
Putting
forth the claim for compensation, it was averred that the deceased
was an agriculturist and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per year. On
his death, there was nobody to take care of the agricultural land.
The claimants were the dependants on the income of the deceased.
The claimants have therefore filed claim petition claiming total
compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- together with interest, to which the
reference is made in earlier paragraph of this judgment.
The
claim petition was resisted by the Appellant GSRTC by filing
written statement, wherein, the involvement of the ST bus in the
accident itself was denied and negligence on part of driver of the
ST bus was also denied. So far as the income of the deceased is
concerned, it was also denied. It was therefore prayed to dismiss
the claim petition.
The
Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that
after the accident, the driver ran away with the bus from the place
of accident. On the basis of FIR, the registration number of ST bus
was disclosed and therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion
that the Driver, after causing the accident ran away with the bus
from the place of accident and therefore he was rash and negligent
in driving the bus.
So
far as the quantification of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal
has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.800/-. Considering the
unit formula, the Tribunal has worked out the dependency benefit at
Rs.644/- per month and thereafter worked out dependency benefit at
fifteen multiplier and worked out total compensation of
Rs.1,35,720/-, which has given rise to the instant Appeal at the
instance of the Appellant GSRTC.
This
Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned advocate
Ms. Archana Patel for the Appellant and Mr. Sanjay Amin, learned
advocate for the claimants and also perused the impugned judgment
and award and considered the oral as well as documentary evidence,
copies whereof have been supplied by them during the course of
submissions.
So
far as negligence attributed to the driver of the ST Corporation is
concerned, on behalf of the complainant, claimant’s
brother-in-law, who was present at the time of accident was examined
and he has also filed FIR and in the FIR, registration number of the
ST bus was also given and on the basis of said FIR, ST bus was
located and from the register of the bus it was found out that the
said ST bus was plying on the same route at the same time. However,
the driver maintained that he did not cause this accident. On
reappraisal of the said evidence, according to this Court when the
eyewitness has stated in the FIR that the bus had passed by the
route and it was found that the same was plying on the same route at
the relevant time, it has to be held that the bus owned by ST
Corporation, driven by its driver has caused the accident and since
he ran away after causing the accident, he was not only negligent
but he has failed in discharging his duty to inform the ST
Corporation about the accident which was caused by the bus driven by
him. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal attributing
negligence to the driver of the bus does not call for any
interference.
So
far as quantification of compensation is concerned, Tribunal has
come to the conclusion that the deceased was holding agricultural
land and he was working in a dairy. Therefore the Tribunal has
assessed notional income of Rs.800/- by way of loss of supervisory
work of agricultural holding and thereafter considering the unit
formula has worked out the dependency benefit after deducting
expenses for personal upkeep of the deceased and applied fifteen
multiplier.
On
reappraisal of the evidence, according to this Court, the Tribunal
has committed no error in awarding total compensation of
Rs.1,35,720/-. Therefore the impugned judgment and award is
required to be confirmed.
Seen
in the above context, the Appeal lacks merit and deserves to be
dismissed.
For
the foregoing reasons, the Appeal fails and accordingly stands
dismissed with no order as to costs.
If
the awarded amount is deposited and invested in FDR, the said FDR
may be released in favour of the claimants upon due verification.
(A.M.Kapadia,J)
Jayanti*
Top