Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1215/1992 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1215 of 1992
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
1
Yes, 2 to 5 No
=========================================================
PITAMBERBHAI
MANGALDAS PARMAR - Appellant(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPN - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PJ YAGNIK for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR SURESH M SHAH for Defendant(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 03/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and
order dated 06.07.1990 passed by the learned Ahmedabad Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal No.1 (Auxiliary) in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.24/1998 wherein the claim of the appellant was dismissed
and further, a showcause notice was issued to the appellant for
making a false statement in his claim petition.
The
learned Tribunal has in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment given
cogent reasons for dismissal of the claim of the appellant which are
reproduced as under :-
6) Moreover,
the opponent-corporation has produced the certified copy of the
judgment passed by this Tribunal in MAC Petition No.108/97; on
perusal whereof, it is very much clear th at this very
petitioner-Pitamberdas had filed that previous claims petition
bearing MAC Petition No.108/87 to get Rs.9999/- as compensation from
the present opponent for this very accident, which took place on
23-11-87 at about 6.30 pm. It is also very clear from t hat
previous claim petition, that the petitioner has been awarded
Rs.750/- as total compensation from the opponent and that the
judgment has been paassed on 19-6-90 by this Tribunal.
7) Once
the petitioner had preferred that previous claim petition No.108/87
in respect of the same accident, he cannot file a subsequent
petition claiming compensation again from the opponent-corporation
in respect of the same incident. He cannot get double compensation
in respect of the single accident, however, it appears that, by
suppressing the real fact that he had preferred previous claim
petition No.108/87 to get compensation from the opponent in respect
of this accident, he has preferred this another petition to get
compensation from the opponent-Corporation.
In
view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am in complete agreement with
the findings of the learned Tribunal. No case is made out by the
appellant. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands
dismissed.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J.)
Caroline
Top
