FA/669/1986 6/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 669 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ================================================= 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 ? ================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus SHANTABEN WD/O.RAMJIBHAI MULJIBHAI PARMAR & 9 - Defendant(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR MD PANDYA for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 7. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 8 - 9. MR GC MAZMUDAR for Defendant(s) : 10, MR HG MAZMUDAR for Defendant(s) : 10, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 10/08/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Gujarat
State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘GSRTC’
for brevity) has preferred the present First Appeal being aggrieved
by and dissatisfied with judgement and award dated 10th
April 1985 rendered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.173 of 1983
consolidated with MACP No.220 of 1983 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad.
2. The Claim
Petitions before the Tribunal arose on account of an accident which
took place on 16th November 1982 on Nadiad-Dakor Road of
Kheda District between ST Bus bearing Registration No.GRR 8206 and
jeep car bearing Registration No.GTW 4958 resulting into death of one
person. The Tribunal while considering the Claim Petition has
recorded the facts about the accident as under.
(7) Opponent
No.2 has filed its written statement at exh.27 in MSC Petition
No.173/1983 and the same written statement is adopted by opponent
No.1 vide purshis exh.8. The S.T. Corporation, opponent No.2 in
M.A.C. Petition No.220 of 1983, has filed its written statement at
exh.14. The S.T. driver has not filed his written statement in this
petition. The terms of objections of all these written statement are
confined to following:-
It is admitted
that on 18.11.1982 the deceased was travelling jeep car belonging to
GEB and that the opponent No.3 was driving the said jeep rashly and
negligently. It is denied that the opponent No.1 was also driving
the bus rashly and negligently and the head on collision took place
between these two vehicles. It is submitted that opponent No.1 was
driving the S.T.Bus from Ahmedabad to Zalod in ordinary speed on the
left hand side of the road and sounding the horn whenever necessary.
When the bus reached near the place of accident, as there was a curve
and culvert, the opponent No.1 slowed down the speed of the bus, but
the driver of the jeep who was coming from the opposite direction
drove the jeep in full speed, in the centre of the road and the hood
of the jeep got entangled with the front light of the S.T.Bus. After
the accident the driver of the jeep took his jeep on his left hand
side of the road. The accident, therefore, took place because of the
entire negligence of opponent No.3. Nine persons were travelling in
this jeep. Opponent No.3 could not control the jeep and the accident
took place.
3. The Tribunal
recorded the case of the appellant-GSRTC as set out in para 9, which
reads as under:
(9) Opponents
Nos.3 and 4 have filed their written statement at exh.21 in
M.A.C.Petition No.173 of 1983 the terms of objections of which are
confined to following:-
It is not
admitted that the accident took place because of the rash and
negligent driving of opponent No.3. It is submitted that the
deceased was an employee of GEB at Umreth and on the date of accident
he was on duty and occupied his seat in the jeep. Opponent No.3 was
driving the vehicle very carefully and cautiously. While the
S.T.driver was completely negligent. The S.T.driver drove the bus
without consideration of the traffic on the road at the relevant
time. When the jeep car was on the extreme left, the S.T.driver did
not drive his bus on the correct side and bumped against the jeep
which was on its correct side and caused the accident. The
S.T.driver at the relevant place overtook another S.T.Bus and at that
time the S.T.Bus collided with the jeep.
4. The learned
advocate for the appellants has produced a copy of the Panchnama and
a sketch and vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an
error in holding that the bus driver of the appellant-GSRTC was
responsible to the extent of 100% for the accident in question.
Perusal of the
Panchnama and the sketch makes it clear that the road proceeding from
Nadiad to Dakor had left hand curve. The S.T. Bus was proceeding from
Nadiad to Dakor, whereas the Jeep was coming from Dakor to Nadiad.
While negotiating left hand curve, normal tendency of the vehicle
will be to stretch towards right hand edge of the road. That being so
it was the S.T. Bus which went wrong side and caused accident. In
this regard the Tribunal has observed in para 28 as under:
(28) I have
occasion to pass by this road several times and I take a judicial
notice of the fact that near village Parvata there is a culvert and
there is a curve. While going from Nadiad to Dakor that curve is a
left hand curve, whereas while coming from Dakor to Nadiad, the curve
is a right hand curve.
In this view of
the matter the finding recorded by the Tribunal on aspect of
negligence are found to be just and proper.
5. Having
considered the rival submissions of the parties, the Tribunal raised
issues which are at Exh. as set out in para no.13 which read as
under :
(13) From
the pleadings of the parties, the following common issues were framed
in M.A.C.Petition No.173 of 1983 at exh.22:-
Whether the
applicants prove that the opponent no.1 during the course of
employment of opponent No.2 and the opponent No.3 during the course
of employment of opponent No.4 drove the S.T.Bus No.GRR-8206 and
jeep car No.GTM-4958 respectively rashly and/or negligent and
thereby caused death of Ramjibhai and damage to jeep Car?
What amount,
if any, are the applicants entitled to receive a compensation and
from which the opponent or opponents?
What order?
The findings to
the said issues are recorded in para 14 which read as under :
1. In the
affirmative opponent No.1, the S.T.Driver. M In the negative against
opponent No.3.
2. Rs.1,03,084/-
in MACP No.173/1983 and Rs.3,934/- in MACP No.220/1983 from
S.T.Driver and S.T.Corporation, who are jointly and severally held
liable. The claim against opponents Nos.3, 4 and 5 stands dismissed
in M.A.C.Petition No.173/1983.
3. As per
order below.
6. This Court,
considering the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for
the parties and examining the impugned judgement and award finds no
infirmity or error having been committed by the Tribunal. Hence no
interference is warranted in this First Appeal. The First Appeal is,
therefore, dismissed.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim