1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 25th October 1996 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.456 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 On 7th November 1991 the claimant was travelling as pillion rider on a scooter driven by Ketan Bipinbhai Soni and they were going towards station from Natraj Talkies. When they reached near Central Depot, one ST Bus came and knocked down the scooter. Both the persons suffered serious injuries. Hence the claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed. This appeal is at the instance of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant mainly contended with regard to the aspect of negligence and submitted that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the bus driver was solely negligible for the accident.
4.0 With regard to negligence the findings of the Tribunal are as under:
“21. It is further very clearly mentioned that from near the said scooter towards south facing eastwest in direction one ST bus No.GJ1/Z 1142 is standing. Conductor side front wheel is at a distance of 6' ft in the south from the place of occurrence. The entire width of the road at the place of occurrence is 32' ft. In the last few lines of the panchnama it is very distinctly mentioned that as the said ST bus was being brought out form the ST depot through the wrong side gate which is meant for the Entry of the buses, the accident is caused and the scooter is hit by the said ST bus.
22.0 Therefore, taking into consideration the entire oral as well as documentary evidence adduced and produced in the case and which is thoroughly discussed and produced in the case and which is thoroughly discussed in the earlier paragraphs of this judgement, this Tribunal has no other alternative but to jump to the conclusion that the accident was the result of the gross and sheer negligence on the part of opponent no.1 while driving the ST bus at the relevant time. As a prudent driver in the employment of ST Corporation he ought not to have taken the risk to bring out the ST bus from the Entry Gate of the Central Bus Depot of the city of Vadodara and to this very effect he has, in so many words admitted during his crossexamination. Moreover, the sworn version of both the victim applicants is in complete consonance with the documentary evidence which is thoroughly discussed hereinabove. Therefore, in the opinion of this Tribunal this is a clear case wherein the maxim of 'resipsa locquitur' comes into play and it is accordingly held that the accident was the result of sole gross negligence on the part of the opponent no.1 while driving the said ST bus at the relevant time and no negligence can never be attributed to the victim applicant who was riding the scooter at the relevant time.”
5.0 In view of the clear evidence on record it is clear that the driver of the ST bus was solely negligent for the accident in question.
6.0 Even with regard to quantum of compensation learned Advocate for the appellant is not in a position to take a different view of the matter.
7.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. This appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*