Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/565/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 565 of 2010
=========================================================
PITAMBHAR
TOLARAM SINDHI - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR.HIREN
M MODI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MS KIRAN D PANDEY for Defendant(s) : 1,
None
for Defendant(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 13/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned Advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the appellant. Learned Advocate
for the appellant made available the typed copies of the documents
which he relies upon like FIR, statement of the driver of the S.T.
bus which was recorded by the Investigating Officer and the
Panchnama. The learned Advocate submitted that the Tribunal has
committed an error in dismissing the claim petition filed by the
present appellant by judgment and order dated 15th May
2009. He submitted that Motor Accident Claim Petition No.473 of 1994
was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), FTC
No. 4, Ahmedabad (Rural). He submitted that it is the case of the
appellant herein that on fateful day i.e. 13.09.1993, at about 7:45
a.m., the accident took place. He submitted that the claimant was
waiting for a bus outside his society i.e. Somnath Society at Sanand,
a bus from Vanod to Ahmedabad came and before he could board the bus,
the conductor gave signal to start the bus and accordingly the driver
started the bus due to which the claimant fell down and sustained
injuries on both his legs.
2. The
learned advocate invited attention of the Court to the FIR filed by
his brother on the very day at 8:35 a.m. In that it is specifically
mentioned that there were other residents of the same society being
Vijaybhai Dasrathbhai, Govindbhai and Dineshbhai Jayantibhai Raval at
the bus stand outside the society. It were they who took the
appellant to the hospital. Despite this, none of these persons is
examined as witness. This makes the case of the appellant weak. If at
all these persons were there on the scene of occurrence, they were
the best persons to tell the Tribunal as to what had happened on that
day.
3. The
statement of one Isabbhai Jafarbhai, driver of the S.T. bus, recorded
by the Investigating Officer on 04.11.1993 is on record. Therein he
has stated that, ‘he did not know about the incident, it is only when
the police came to record his statement, he learnt about the
accident.’ If this statement is appreciated in light of the Panchnama
wherein it is stated that on the place of the accident the
raw-material for preparing ‘Gulfi’ was found and one aluminium
container was found to have been crushed by the S.T. bus wheel, a
cotton bag was also found along with plastic shoes beside it. If this
had happened, certainly it would have been noticed by the S.T. bus
driver.
5. In
totality, the Court finds that the Tribunal has not committed any
error in appreciating the evidence led before it and therefore the
judgment and award do not warrant any interference at the hands of
this Court. The appeal is dismissed.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
jani
Top