1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Junagadh, on 8.04.2002 in Claim Case Nos.515 of 1993 and 516 of 1993. The Tribunal in connection with the Claim Case No.515 of 1993 awarded Rs.2,02,000/- by way of compensation with running interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the realization and the Tribunal directed the opponents therein viz. the driver of the S.T Bus and the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation to pay the aforementioned amount.
2. The Tribunal, in connection with Claim Case No.516 of 1993, awarded Rs.1,04,920/- by way of compensation with running interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of said claim application till the realization and the Tribunal again directed to the opponents therein viz. the driver of the S.T Bus and the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation to pay the aforementioned amount.
3. The original opponent no.2-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation preferred both these appeals wherein in First Appeal No.569 of 2003, the appellant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenged the common judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in connection with Claim Case No.515 of 1993 and in First Appeal No.570 of 2003, the appellant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenged the common judgment award rendered by the Tribunal in connection with Claim Case No.516 of 1993.
Since both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and since both these appeals were argued together by the learned Counsel representing both the parties, both these appeals are being disposed of by present judgment.
4. As per the case of the claimants, the vehicular accident occurred on 9.05.1993, at about 6:15 hours in the morning, near Malanka village within the limit of Mendarda Police Station. It is the case of the claimants that at the time of accident, deceased Bhagwanjibhai was rider of the Motorcycle bearing registration No.GJV-1450 and the claimant-Rajesh Haribhai (Original claimant in Claim Case No.516 of 1993) was the pillion rider. It is therefore, the case that when the motorcycle reached near the place of accident, at that time, one S.T.Bus booked to ply between Ahmadabad and Veraval driven by opponent no.1-driver rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction and dashed with the motorcycle and in this accident, rider of the Motorcycle viz.Bhagwanji Ravji died and the pillion rider of the Motorcycle claimant-Rajesh Haribhai sustained serious bodily injuries. The dependents and legal heirs of Bhagwanji Ravji filed Claim Case No.515 of 1993 to recover a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- by way of compensation and injured pillion rider claimant-Rajesh Haribhai filed a Claim Case No.516 of 1993 to recover a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of compensation.
5. As stated above, at the end of trial, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- by way of compensation to the dependants of deceased Bhagwanji Ravji and awarded a sum of Rs.1,04,920/- to the injured claimant-Rajesh Haribhai.
6. Ms.Roopal Patel, learned advocate for the appellants-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and Divisional Controller of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Junagadh, at the outset, submitted that from the very beginning, it was the defence of the driver of the S.T.Bus and the appellant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation that the bus was not at all involved in the accident. My attention was drawn to the FIR lodged by the claimant – Rajesh Haribhai and even in the FIR, no name of the driver is mentioned. It is submitted that even the registration number of the S.T.Bus as well as route of the Bus is also not mentioned. It is submitted that the Tribunal relied upon the panchnama of scene of accident, but admittedly considering the panchnama, the same was not prepared by the police either in presence of driver of the S.T.Bus or in presence of responsible officer of the corporation. It is submitted that the opponent-driver of the S.T.Bus was examined by the corporation and in his evidence, he categorically denied the involvement of the bus in the accident. It is therefore, submitted that the claimants failed to prove the basic fact regarding the involvement of the S.T.Bus itself in the accident. However, the Tribunal not only accepted the case of the claimants regarding the involvement of the S.T.Bus in the accident, but fastened 100% liability of the driver of the bus for the accident. It is therefore, submitted that both these appeals may be allowed.
7. Ms. Gadhavi, learned advocate for the respondents-original claimants, at the outset, submitted that the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants have established the involvement of the S.T.Bus in the accident. It is submitted that even considering the deposition of the driver of S.T Bus, in his cross examination, he categorically admitted that pursuant to FIR lodged by one of the claimant viz. Rajesh Haribhai before the Police, the police investigated the case and ultimately chargesheet came to be filed against the opponent-driver of the S.T.Bus viz. Damodarbhai in the Magisterial Court. She further submitted that in the cross-examination, the driver of the S.T.Bus admitted that during the course of police investigation, police recorded the statements of eye-witnesses, who were present at nearby agricultural lands and he was supplied with copies of those statements. It is therefore, submitted that the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the involvement of the S.T.Bus is established.
8. Since during the course of arguments, point raised appears to be basic point going to the root of the entire claim petitions, namely the involvement of the S.T.Bus in the accident, it would be necessary to consider the relevant papers of the concerned claim petitions. There is no dispute that right from the inception, driver of the S.T.Bus denied the involvement of the S.T.Bus in the accident. Even before the Tribunal, the factum involvement of S.T.Bus was denied. It has been submitted that even when the concerned Investigating Police Officer recorded the statement of driver of the Bus, he categorically denied the involvement of the Bus in the accident. There is also no dispute that at the time, when the panchnama of scene of accident was drawn admittedly the bus was not found parked near the place of accident. Under the circumstance, if the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal is considered, it transpires that the Tribunal mainly relied upon the oral deposition of driver as well as oral deposition of the injured claimant-Rajesh Haribhai, who was the pillion rider of the Motorcycle. Considering the evidence of claimant-Rajesh Haribhai, he categorically stated that he was the pillion rider of the Motorcycle and deceased Bhagwanji Ravji was riding the Motorcycle and when the Motorcyel reached near the place of accident, S.T.Bus came from the opposite direction and on seeing the S.T.Bus deceased Bhagwanji diverted the Motorcycle even to the Kachha Road on the left side of the road, but driver of the S.T.Bus dashed with the motorcycle and the accident occurred.
9. I have taken into consideration the FIR as well as panchnama of occurrence. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that not only involvement of the S.T.Bus is proved on record, but it has been proved that the accident occurred on sole negligence of driver of the S.T.Bus. In this connection, considering the evidence of driver of the S.T.Bus viz. Damodarbhai, Exh:66, recorded by the Tribunal, he admitted that on 09.05.1993, he was assigned the duty to drive S.T.Bus booked between Ahmedabad to Veraval via Talala. He further admitted that at about 5:20 hours in the morning, S.T.Bus left Mendarda for Veraval. However, he submitted that near Malakan Village or throughout the road, he did not see any motorcycle nor any accident took place with the motorcycle. However, in his cross- examination, he admitted that road between Mendara to Talala was a single road. He further admitted that he was involved in police case and against him, in connection with this accident, police filed charge-sheet. He further submitted that as per the charge-sheet and police case, it is alleged that he dashed his S.T.Bus with the motorcycle. He further admitted that in the charge-sheet papers, there were statements of eye-witnesses, who were allegedly present in the nearby fields and he was also supplied with copies of those statements. However, he denied that because of his rash and negligent driving of the bus, the accident occurred but he is disowning his liability just to save himself from departmental action. It appears that in Para-7 of the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal in detail appreciated the oral evidence adduced by the injured claimant as well as by driver of the bus and came to the conclusion that the involvement of the bus is proved on record. Re-examining the oral evidence, so also considering the discussion made by the Tribunal, there does not appear any error having been committed by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the involvement of the S.T.Bus in the accident is established and that because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the accident occurred.
10. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants proved the involvement of the bus in the accident. More over, considering over all evidence of injured claimant, so also driver of the bus as well as considering the documentary evidence on record, it further transpires that the Tribunal did not erred in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the S.T.Bus was sole responsible for causing the accident.
11. No other contention was raised and in above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the common judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. The appeals, therefore, deserve dismissal.
12. For the foregoing reasons, both these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Girish (J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.)