A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THESE three petitions have been filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the award dated January 11 1983 passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) Banaskantha at Palanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petitions Nos. 101 102 and 103 of 1982 ( 2 ) THAT on February 13 1982 an accident took place between a bus bearing No. GTH 5335 and a jeep car bearing No. 5589. The vehicles collided with each other somewhere near village Kuwarsi on Danta-Ambaji Road in Palanpur District. The inmates of jeep car were injured on account of the accident. The injured preferred claim petitions Nos. 101 102 and 103 of 1982. The Tribunal held the drivers of both the vehicles guilty of negligence and apportioned the negligence as follows:75 of negligence to the driver of Jeep car. 25 of negligence to the driver of the bus. HAVING regard to the nature of injuries and other circumstances the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the claimant of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 101 of 1982 Rs. 1500/ to the claimant of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 102 of 1982 and Rs. 2500/- to the claimant of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 103 of 1982. Against the aforesaid award passed by the Tribunal the GSRTC has preferred these petitions. ( 3 ) THE contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation is that there is absolutely no evidence whatso- ever on the basis of which it can be said that the ST bus driver was in any way negligent. Counsel for the peti- tioner-Corporation pointed out from the award that even according to the observations made by the Tribunal the claimant himself admitted that the ST bus was taken on the correct side and it had stopped. It is also contended that one of the claimants Shri Hirabhai Exhibit 25 has admitted that the while he was waiting for the ST bus the jeep car had come running at a highly exces- sive speed. The jeep car had stopped and he ms taken as a passenger and again the jeep car us driven at an excessive speed. Thus when the jeep car was driven with excessive speed it collided with the standing ST bus. The jeep car had stopped and he ms taken as a passenger and again the jeep car us driven at an excessive speed. Thus when the jeep car was driven with excessive speed it collided with the standing ST bus. It ap- pears that there is sow substance in the grievance made by the GSRTC. Had this been the original proceeding probably the view could have been taken that the driver of the ST bus us not at all negligent. It also appears that the view taken by the Tribunal for ascribing 25% of negligence to the driver of the ST bus rests on a very thin evi- dence. The Tribunal has based its order on the fact that the ST bus was almost in the middle of the road and both the vehicles had collided with each other on their respective right hand side. It appears that the Tribunal is probably influenced by the fact that the ST bus is a bigger vehicle while compared to the jeep car. It would have been better had this fact remained absent while assessing the evidence in this case. Still however though the view taken by the Tribunal does not seem to be perfectly in accordance with the correct principles of apprecia- tion of evidence the same is not such that it may be interfered with in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitu- tion of India. In all these three matters the total liability of the Corporation will come to Rs. 6 0 (Rupees Six thousand only ). The ST Corporation though a public sector undertaking is required to be run on business princi- ples. For such a small amount of Rs. 6 0 involved in all the three matters further expenditure by way of this litigation could have and should have been avoided. Payment of one or two thousand rupees here or there on ac- count of compensation should not be made a matter of prestige and principle. The persons responsible for and in charge of such litigation should think beforehand that would they have incurred the further expenditure on liti- gation had it been their private mat- ter ? Is there any principle involved in such matter ? The persons responsible for and in charge of such litigation should think beforehand that would they have incurred the further expenditure on liti- gation had it been their private mat- ter ? Is there any principle involved in such matter ? Even if there is any such principle involved is the principle so important and vital for the administration of public sector undertaking like ST Corporation that the expendi- ture by way of litigation has got to be incurred ? ( 4 ) IN First Appeal No. 405 of 1975 decided on November 3 1982 this Court (S. L. Talati J. and myself) has made observation regarding the approach that should be adopted by the public sector undertaking and other public authorities in respect of the litigations in court. In that case an agricultural labourer had come in contact with live electrical wire and had died. The heirs and legal representatives of deceased agricultural labour had to put up a legal battle for more than 13 years to obtain compensation amount. The Court observed:in most of the litigation in our courts either public corporations or the Central or State Government is a party litigant. Before embarking upon a legal combat it would be proper for the public authorities to pose questions such as - 1 Will the legal battle serve any public cause ?2 Are the issues involved of general public importance that they require decision of the Court ?3 Is it not worthwhile to adopt reasonable practical and businesslike attitude and put an end to the matter ?4 Will it serve the cause of justice or is it only for the purpose of determination of some technical points ?5 If the question is pertaining to payment of compensation to a citizen on account of bodily injury or death would it be proper for public authorities to adopt totally unreasonable attitude and raise all possible technical con- tentions ?6 Litigation for whose benefit and whose cost ?7 Is the issue involved such that it has bearing on finances of the institution ? Is it going to affect the insti- tution permanently ?we are sure that measured from any of the aforesaid criteria the answer would be that it would have been better for the respondent-Corporation not to have entered into such protracted litigation and leave the family members of the deceased in miserable plight for more than 13 years. Is it going to affect the insti- tution permanently ?we are sure that measured from any of the aforesaid criteria the answer would be that it would have been better for the respondent-Corporation not to have entered into such protracted litigation and leave the family members of the deceased in miserable plight for more than 13 years. We hope that in future the public authorities will be well advised to adopt a reasonable and practical attitude in all court matters and will not try to carry the matters to their logical end unless the issue involved is of general public importance and it is going to have permanent effect on their finances and/or the administration in general. These observations apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case with equal force. It would haw been much better had the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporationa voided further litigation by way of these three petitions in which petty claims of few thousand rupees are involved. How much cost will be incurred after this litigation ? How much time will be invested (wasted) by court insurance company and the GSRTC itself ? It is hoped that pragmatic and business like approach will be adopted in future. ( 5 ) IN above view of the matter I do not think it proper to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. .