Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1224 (RAJ)

G. S. R. T. C. v. Ranjanben

2010-07-14

RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2010
Hon'ble TRIPATHI, J.—These two appeals are filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation for short) being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 30.03.1983 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 338 of 1981 and 337 of 1981. The Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 54,000/- to the claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 338 of 1981 as a pillion rider of a motorcycle bearing registration No. GAC-2768 had died when an accident took place between the said motorcycle and an S.T. bus bearing registration No. GRS-8268. The Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the claimant in M.A.C.P. No. 337 of 1981 to the driver of the said motorcycle, who too sustained injuries. 1.1. The Tribunal was pleased to order that an amount of Rs. 54,000/- be paid with 6% interest from the date of the application till realization with proportionate costs. The Tribunal was also pleased to order that out of the amount of Rs. 54,000/-, Rs. 33,000/- be paid to claimant No.1 - widow of the deceased and out of the amount of Rs. 21,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- be paid to claimant No.2 Patel Ambalal Chaturbhai, the father of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/- be paid to mother of the deceased - claimant No.3. The Tribunal further directed that out of Rs. 33,000/- awarded to the claimant No.1, Rs. 20,000/- be invested in National Savings Certificate for a period of 6 years. Similarly, the Tribunal has also directed that out of Rs.15,000/- awarded to claimant No.3 - Patel Kamlaben, the mother of the deceased, National Savings Certificate of Rs. 8,000/- be purchased for a period of 6 years. The Tribunal also ordered that out of the amount awarded, the Government will have a prior claim for the deficit court-fees. 1.2. So far as M.A.C.P. No. 337 of 1981 is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 60,000/- to the claimant. The Hon'ble Tribunal has recorded in the judgment that as in this case applicant has made a false presentation that he was driving the motorcycle, while in fact it has come on record that it was the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle. The Hon'ble Tribunal has done this to set an example. The amount is awarded with proportionate costs. The Hon'ble Tribunal has recorded in the judgment that as in this case applicant has made a false presentation that he was driving the motorcycle, while in fact it has come on record that it was the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle. The Hon'ble Tribunal has done this to set an example. The amount is awarded with proportionate costs. The Tribunal was pleased to order that out of the amount of award Rs. 60,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- be invested in any nationalized bank for a period of 6 years in Fixed Deposit or in the alternative National Saving Certificate for 6 years be purchased. The Tribunal also ordered that the claimant Mahendrakumar will be liable to pay the deficit court-fees and the Government will have a prior claim on the amount of award for the deficit court-fees. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as under: 2.1. On 17.09.1981 at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening on Himatnagar - Ahmedabad National Highway No.8 near 'Poglu' and 'Piludra' bus stand an accident took place. At the time of accident, applicant of M.A.C.P. No. 337 of 1981 was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. GAC - 2768 and on the rear seat the deceased Yogeshkumar Ambalal Patel was sitting. Both were serving in 'Tractor Trading Corporation'. After completing their work they started from 'Poglu' to Himatnagar. While the claimant of MACP No. 337 of 1981 - Mahendrakumar was driving his motorcycle on a correct side at a slow speed and cautiously, one S.T. bus bearing registration No. GRS-8267 was coming in full speed and that bus was going to Ahmedabad from Ambaji. At the place of accident there was a S.T. bus stand. As the bus driver drove the bus with full speed and in negligent manner, lost control on the bus and thereby the bus collided with motorcycle and the accident took place. 3. The S.T. Corporation filed its written statement/defence by Exh.11, which is common in both the Motor Accident Claims Petitions. The G.S.R.T.C. denied all the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle, involved in the accident are the necessary parties, still, however, they are not joined as a party, hence the Motor Accident Claims Petitions cannot be proceeded further. The G.S.R.T.C. denied all the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle, involved in the accident are the necessary parties, still, however, they are not joined as a party, hence the Motor Accident Claims Petitions cannot be proceeded further. The G.S.R.T.C. has also contended that at the time of accident the deceased Yogeshkumar A. Patel was driving the motorcycle and claimant of MACP No. 337 of 1981 - Panchal Mahendrabhai was sitting on the rear seat. But, suppressing this correct position it was represented that the claimant of MACP No. 337 of 1981 - Mahendrabhai was driving the motorcycle and deceased Yogeshkumar was sitting on the rear seat. It was also contended by the S.T. Corporation that accident took place on account of negligence and carelessness of the driver of the motorcycle - Yogeshkumar and that Corporation is not responsible at all, for the accident. In the alternative, it was also contended that the amount claimed by the opponents is excessive. 4. The Tribunal by taking into consideration the rival contentions, framed issues. An issue qua negligence was also framed, which was answered by saying that the driver of the S.T. bus was negligent only to the extent of 40%. Meaning thereby the driver of the motorcycle was negligent up to 60%. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellant G.S.R.T.C. vehemently argued that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the S.T. bus driver was negligent to the extent of 40%. The learned Advocate submitted that the S.T. bus was proceeding from Himatnagar to Ahmedabad on a 'national highway' and at that time from 'Poglu' village the motorcyclist entered the highway and took a turn towards Himatnagar. As they did not exercise due care while entering the highway they dashed with the S.T. bus and the accident took place and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the motorcycle was 100% negligent for the accident and not the S.T. bus driver. The learned Advocate for the appellant G.S.R.T.C. vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated this fact in a right perspective and therefore recorded wrong finding and has erred in holding the S.T. bus driver negligent to the extent of 40%. 6. The learned Advocate for the appellant G.S.R.T.C. vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated this fact in a right perspective and therefore recorded wrong finding and has erred in holding the S.T. bus driver negligent to the extent of 40%. 6. The learned Advocate for the appellant G.S.R.T.C. submitted that in the event the aforesaid contention of driver of the motorcycle being 100% negligent is not accepted, then it be held that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs. 54,000/- in a case of death of Shri Yogeshkumar and an amount of Rs. 60,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 337 of 1981. 7. This Court examined the aforesaid contention, perused the relevant documents from the record and proceedings. The learned Advocate Ms. Deepa Thaker appearing in First Appeal No. 147 of 1984 i.e. arising from MACP No. 338 of 1981 i.e. the one which is filed to get compensation for the death of Yogeshkumar, for opponent No.3, submitted that the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant G.S.R.T.C. are devoid of any merit and the same are not required to be accepted. The learned Advocate for the opponent No.3 submitted that the amount awarded is on a lower side. The learned Advocate submitted that if it is not held to be on lower side then it be held to be just and proper and the First Appeals be dismissed. 8. Taking into consideration the Panchnama Exh.38, the deposition of the S.T. bus driver - Tarachand Devchand Exh.56 and taking into consideration the deposition of Mahendrakumar - claimant of MACP No. 337 of 1981, this Court is of the opinion that so far as negligence aspect is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion and has rightly reached to a conclusion that the driver of the motorcycle was negligent to the extent of 60%. This Court is in agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the S.T. bus driver was also negligent but to the extent of 40% for mainly two reasons; (1) the S.T. bus driver though was on highway, is not expected to be unmindful of the fact that it was 6:00 p.m. in the evening and that is the time when normally the residents of the nearby villages come on highway and in a given case do cross the highway, and therefore, he was expected to be more careful. More particularly, when the accident has taken place by hitting the motorcyclist by the 'central front portion' of the bus is suggestive of the fact that the S.T. bus driver was also not in a position to control his bus and avoid the accident and therefore this finding is found to be just and proper. The same is not warranted to be altered in any manner by this Court. 9. So far as the amount is concerned taking into consideration the nature of the accident wherein one person has died and the other person sustained serious injuries to the extent that he was required to be treated at Himatnagar Civil Hospital. Thereafter, he was required to be sent to the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. Thereafter, he was required to take treatment of Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. Rashmibhai Vora, thereafter he was required to take treatment of Neuro Surgeon Dr. P.R.Thakore and lastly he was required to take 'physiotherapy treatment' in the clinic of Dr. Dilipbhai Patel. In view of this, the Court finds that the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive by any standard and therefore, these appeals must fail. Accordingly these First Appeals are dismissed. 10. At this juncture, learned Advocate Ms. Deepa Thaker for the opponents in First Appeal No. 147 of 1984 stated that the opponent No.1 - widow of the deceased (marriage had taken place only four months before the accident) has remarried, and therefore the amount awarded to opponent No.1 - claimant No.1 of M.A.C.P. No. 338 of 1981 be directed to be paid to the surviving claimant - the mother of the deceased. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, the Tribunal is directed to pay the amount awarded to opponent No.1 herein to the mother of the deceased.