Gujarat High Court High Court

====================================== vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008

Gujarat High Court
====================================== vs Unknown on 29 July, 2008
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

FA/89120/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

FIRST
APPEAL No. 891 of 2008
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2660 of 2008
 

 
======================================
 

GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 

 

Versus
 

RAHENABEN
MAHMADHUSSEN YUSUFALI 

 

W/O
DECD MAHAMADHUSSEN & OTHERS
 

====================================== 
Appearance
: 
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for the
Appellant   
 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

Date
: 29/07/2008 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)

Heard
learned counsel for the appellant. The basic argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that in the register kept with
the State Road Transport Corporation the accident has not been
recorded, which is a practice that on the information of the driver
such accidents are recorded. This factum, at best, could have been
an admission of the party in its own favour. If it has not been
recorded, then, it can be said that this may be a deliberate attempt
on the part of the party to avoid its implication. Nobody has any
control of recording the entries in the register except the
management of the Corporation which has filed this appeal.

Another
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is
evidence of the driver that the accident has never taken place. The
Tribunal has however believed the evidence of eye witness. On
preponderance of probability if the appellant’s case is not believed,
then, the claimant’s case cannot be defeated.

In
that view of the matter, no interference is called for. The appeal
has no force and hence it is dismissed summarily.

Registry
is directed to transmit the amount of Rs.25,000/-, which was
deposited by the appellant, as a pre-condition, to the Tribunal for
being disbursed to the claimants.

In
view of the disposal of the main matter, no orders are required to be
passed in Civil Application No. of 2008.

(Bhagwati
Prasad, J.)

(S.R.Brahmbhatt,
J.)

*mohd

   

Top