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 ?
========================================================= GUJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN - Appellant(s) Versus KALEDIA JIVAJI KALUJI THAKOR & 9 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR HEMANT S SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE UNSERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2 - 3, 10, None for Defendant(s) : 4 -
9. ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 22/03/2012 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
1. These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and award dated 08.01.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Banaskantha at Palanpur in M.A.C.P. No. 277/1986, 319/1986 and 323/1986, whereby the said claim petitions were partly allowed and the original claimants of M.A,C.P. No. 277/1986 were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,47,000/-, in M.A.C.P. No. 319/1986, the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.34,000/- and in M.A.C.P. No. 323/1986, the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the application till its realization.
2. In connection with the vehicular accident that occurred on 06.07.1986 in which Pathuji and Kapurji died, and Chenaji Kuvarji injured, the legal heirs and injured person filed M.A.C.P. Nos. 277/1986, 319/1986 and 323/1986 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha at Palanpur, which came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the present appeale has been preferred.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Though served none appears on behalf of the respondents. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is on the higher side. However, having gone through the impugned award, I find that the compensation awarded under the respective heads are just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject.
4. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, looking to the entire evidence available on record, I find that the accident in question took place on account of the sole negligence of the driver of the appellant-Corporation. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present appeals.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top