Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1215 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Harishkumar Chhaganlal Soni

2010-07-13

RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2010
Hon'ble TRIPATHI, J.—Union of India through General Manager, Ahmedabad Telecom District along with one Shayar Manaram Meena are before this Court being aggrieved by judgment dated 14.9.1990 and award dated 11.12.1990 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV-A), Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.187 of 1985. The appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The MACT was pleased to award amount of Rs.1,06,500/- with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 10% from the date of application till realisation. The learned Tribunal was pleased to hold the opponents jointly and severally liable. They were directed to bear their own costs. 2. The learned Tribunal was pleased to order that when the amount is deposited the deficit court fees, if any, shall be deducted and thereafter out of remaining amount the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in a Nationalised Bank for a period of six years with the condition that no loan or withdrawal will be permitted without the prior permission of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was pleased to order that the rest of the amount be paid to the applicant in cash by account payee cheque only. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal as set out in the judgment and award are as under: 3.1 The accident occurred at about 4.15 p.m. on 10.9.1985 near the Ladies Hostel on the road leading from Town Hall under bridge to Ambawadi. 3.2 It is alleged that the applicant was proceeding on a scooter on the road from the under bridge to Ambawadi. When he came near the ladies hostel, he saw a stationary jeep. While he was trying to over take the jeep car after sounding his horn the driver of the jeep took abrupt `U' turn without giving any signal. The front portion of the scooter hit the cabin portion of the driver's side of the jeep car and the applicant was thrown off the scooter. The applicant sustained serious injuries to his left leg. 3.3 According to the applicant he was aged 36 years. At the time of the accident he was employed as Junior Assistant in the Printing Department of Ambica Mill and his monthly remuneration was Rs.2,500/- including the amount of bonus. The application was filed on 28.11.1985 i.e. within two and half months of the accident. 3.3 According to the applicant he was aged 36 years. At the time of the accident he was employed as Junior Assistant in the Printing Department of Ambica Mill and his monthly remuneration was Rs.2,500/- including the amount of bonus. The application was filed on 28.11.1985 i.e. within two and half months of the accident. After referring to the medical expenses which he had incurred till then the applicant claimed Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation without specifying amounts under different heads.....". 3.4 The other relevant facts are set out in para 5 which reads as under: "The jeep car belonged to Union of India, the opponent No.2 and at the time of the accident it was driven by the opponent No.1. The opponents have filed their written statement at Exh.10. In para 7 of the written statement the opponents have set out the version of the opponent No.1 as follows: "It is stated that on 10.9.1985 at about 4.15 p.m. the opponent No.1 was coming from one of the lane of residential quarter near ladies hostel and was going to Ellis Bridge side so that the driver gave signal to take right side turn and have stopped the jeep in the middle of the road so that traffic coming from Ellis Bridge side may pass through behind jeep. At this time, one jeep and the applicant on his scooter came side by side to go Ambawadi side trying to over take each other and also to the jeep under question. Jeep Driver coming side by side the scooter passed away from right back side of the standing jeep but due to fear and running more speed, the scooter driver could not control himself and dashed with the front part of the right side of the jeep which was standing there. It is denied that the accident took place due to fault of jeep driver opponent No.1. So far jeep was standing awaiting clearance of traffic on the road, there is no question of giving signal. The opponents have denied the allegations of injury suffered by the applicant. They have also denied other averments made in the application." 3.5 The Tribunal after framing the issues on the question of negligence answered the same in affirmative. So far jeep was standing awaiting clearance of traffic on the road, there is no question of giving signal. The opponents have denied the allegations of injury suffered by the applicant. They have also denied other averments made in the application." 3.5 The Tribunal after framing the issues on the question of negligence answered the same in affirmative. The issue No.1 reads as under: (1) Whether the applicant proves that he sustained injuries is an accident on 10th September, 1985, with Jeep Car No. GUD 3478 driven by opponent No.1 rashly and negligently, while the applicant was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.GAK 8004, from the under-bridge towards Ambawadi. 3.6 So far as the negligence of the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal answered the same in negative. While answering the issue No.2 which reads as under: "(2) Whether opponent No.2 proves that the accident had occurred on account of the sole negligence of the applicant." 4. Learned advocate Ms.Archana Amin for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in answering the aforesaid two issues in affirmative and in negative respectively. She submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that what was set out in para 7 of the written statement was required to be accepted in toto, and by not accepting the same, the learned Tribunal has committed an error and hence this appeal. In this regard, learned advocate invited attention of the Court to the relevant documents. 5. As against that learned advocate Mr.Patel appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the facts in a right perspective and has awarded a `just' amount as compensation, and therefore, the first appeal deserves to be dismissed and no interference is called for at the hand of this Court. 6. Having heard both the learned advocates at length. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence led before it and had rightly assessed the compensation which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper. Hence, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.