Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= GSRTC
- Appellant(s) Versus DILIPBHAI BACHUBHAI GARASIYA & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR MITUL K SHELAT for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MTM HAKIM for Defendant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) :
2, ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 22/02/2012 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
1. These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and award dated 25.02.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux.] Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 1584 of 1994 and in M.A.C.P. No. 104 of 1995, whereby the claim petitions were partly allowed and the original claimants in M.A.C.P. No. 1584 of 1994 were awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,47,000/- and in M.A.C.P. No. 104 of 1995, the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.65,500/- along with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application till its realization.
2. The facts in brief are that on 12.11.1994, while Kanchanbhai Budhabhai and Dilipbhai were travelling on the roof of the S.T. bus bearing no. GQE 9589, from Vadodara to Dabhoi. On account of the rash and negligent driving of the S.T. bus, the passengers sitting on the roof were hit by the branch of the tree, as a result of which, Kanchanbhai and Dilipbhai sustained severe bodily injuries and subsequently Kanchanbhai expired. The legal heirs of deceased and injured persons filed claim petitions, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant Corporation has preferred the present appeal.
3. The appellant-Corporation, original opponent no. 2, has challenged the impugned award mainly on the ground that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability of satisfying the claim on it though it was established on record that at the time of accident the deceased and injured persons were travelling on the roof of the bus.
4, The learned counsel for the respondents - original claimants supported the impugned award and submitted that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the S.T. bus and therefore the Tribunal has rightly held S.T. liable to pay the compensation.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the evidence on record, it appears that when the accident took place, the deceased and injured persons were found to be travelling on the roof of the S.T. bus. When the driver had the knowledge that some passengers were sitting on the roof of the bus, it is the duty of the driver to drive the bus carefully. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the Tribunal was completely justified in holding the appellant Corporation held liable to satisfy the award. 4. So far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same also appears to have been arrived at after duly appreciating the entire evidence on record. Hence, in my view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be in complete consonance with the evidence on record.
6. In the view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was completely justified in holding the appellant Corporation liable to satisfy the award and awarding the compensation in question. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and find no reasons to interfere in these appeals.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top