1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
2. The opponent - GSRTC in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1552 of 1988 has approached this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Mehsana on 08.08.1995, partly allowing the claim of the respondents hereinabove and against awarding compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- with running interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of the application till realisation of the said amount and at the costs of the petition.
3. The brief facts leading to filing this First Appeal are set out as under.
4. On 08.05.1988, the S.T. Bus bearing registration No.GRT 9994 hit the cyclist, who sustained serious injury and as a result whereof, he was to be hospitalised on the very same day and ultimately, died on 22.07.1988 on account of the injury which he sustained in the accident. The widow and two sons of the deceased victim preferred claim petition against the present appellant which came to be registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1552 of 1988 which came to be partly allowed in terms of the award dated 08.08.1995 which is assailed in the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. Learned advocate Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt appearing for the appellant has contended that the testimony of the eye-witness ought not to have been considered to have some veracity as he admitted in his cross-examination that he happened to be the person acquainted with the deceased prior to the death of the deceased. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the accident occurred on 08.05.1988 and the death occurred on 22.07.1988. Looking to the gap between the accident and death and the fact that the deceased, in fact, was discharged on 21.06.1988, could have persuaded the Tribunal in rejecting the claim petition as the death can be said to be occurred not on account of the injury sustained by the victim in the accident wherein, the bus of the corporation was involved which was driven by the employee of the corporation. The learned advocate for the appellant had taken this Court through the testimonies of eye-witnesses Modh Devendra Dashrathlal at (Exh.44) and Dr.G.K. Patel and submitted that the claim ought not to have been even partly allowed by the Tribunal.
6. Shri V.C. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondents hereinabove, submitted that the evidence on record indicate that the testimony of eye-witness Devendra Modh recorded at Exh.44 could not have been discarded merely on the ground that he was acquainted with the deceased prior to his death. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents further submitted that the testimony of Dr.G.K. Patel recorded at Exh.47 also go to show clearly that the death was nothing but the result of the injury sustained by the victim in the accident that occurred on 08.05.1988. Learned advocate Mr.Desai, relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Somabhai Vajabhai & another V/s.
Babubhai Bhailalbhai & others reported in 1982(1) GLR 785, submitted that the gap between the date of sustaining the injury and the death cannot be militated against the Court accepting the fact that the injury was the cause of death in the case cited hereinabove, the medical evidence was also not there. As against this, the case on hand is on a better footing. So far as the doctor is concerned, who has been examined at Exh.47, he has clearly in terms deposed to the effect that the deceased had embolism and the entire narration of the treatment and nature of injury would go to show that the death was on account of injury and its aftermath suffered by the deceased on account of the accident which occurred on 08.05.1988.
7. This Court has heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the Record and Proceedings. The Court is not inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellant for the following reasons.
The eye-witness Modh Devendra Dashrathlal, whose testimony has been recorded at Exh.44, had, in fact, given so vivid narration as to make it difficult for discarding his evidence only on account of he being acquainted with the deceased on earlier occasion. The narration and the vividness of the narration as to how the accident occurred would go to show that the driver of the bus, who is involved in the accident, was responsible for hitting the cyclist victim from behind and as a result whereof, the victim sustained serious injuries as can be seen from the testimony of the doctor, whose version is recorded at Exh.47. The doctor has clearly deposed the nature of injury and the patient's condition and he has clearly stated that the entire skin on the left leg was avulsioned when the victim was brought to the hospital. There was a fracture in the left thigh and he had sustained three fractures. The patient was required to be operated. Though, after his discharge on 21.06.1988, he was required to be attended by the doctors for dressing his injury and was required to be given blood also. All these factors as narrated by the doctors go to show that the Tribunal has rightly held that the death that occurred on account of the injury sustained by the victim during the accident, I am of the view that the judgment and award, therefore, needs no interference. The appeal therefore fails and is required to be rejected and accordingly rejected.
8. Shri Desai, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the entire amount of award is not deposited and there is a shortfall of Rs.16,278/- and therefore, the same shall be deposited with the Tribunal by the appellant. This amount shall be disbursed to respondent No.1 after proper verification. As the appeal is dismissed, the parties are at liberty to approach the Tribunal for appropriate order for disbursement of the rest of the amount.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Hitesh Top