Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Rohitbhai Shantilal Dave & on 28 April, 2014
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
C/FA/253/1997 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 253 of 1997
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION....Appellant(s)
Versus
ROHITBHAI SHANTILAL DAVE & 1....Defendant(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR YM THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date : 28/04/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 6
C/FA/253/1997 JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the judgement and award dated 8th November, 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No.365 of 1993.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondents No.1 and 2, namely, Amreli Municipality and its Chief Officer filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming that its Fire Fighter bearing No.GJ-14-T-3070, of the ownership of the municipality, had been damaged in an accident and accordingly, claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under section 166 of the Act. It was the case of the claimants that the incident had taken place on 30.01.1993 between 11.30 to 11.45 p.m. on the Amreli - Parvala road. That the road from Amreli to Ahmedabad is a National Highway and that the road where the accident took place goes from Amreli to Lathi, Chavand, Dhasa, Dhola, Umarala to Vallabhipur and then, to Ahmedabad. The claimants were bringing back the Fire Fighter after the same had undergone servicing at Ahmedabad. Two employees of the municipality were also seated in the cabin of the said vehicle. It was the case of the claimants that the driver of the Fire Fighter was driving the same carefully on the right side of the road. When they reached the scene of the accident, an ST bus bearing No.GJ-1- T-9476 came from the opposite side. The driver of the bus, who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and with excessive speed, came from the wrong side and the bus collided with the Fire Fighter, as a result whereof, immense damage was caused to the Fire Fighter. Accordingly, the Page 2 of 6 C/FA/253/1997 JUDGMENT claimants claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards damage caused to the said vehicle. It was the case of the claimants that since the accident had taken place on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the ST bus, they were required to recover such amount from the respondents.
3. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally negligent and attributed 50% negligence to the drivers of both the vehicles.
4. On the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the claimants had to incur expenses of Rs.67,000/- towards repairing of the vehicle and Rs.2,500/- for taking the vehicle to Ahmedabad and that the Fire Fighter was lying in non-use for a period of one year. Before the Tribunal, the claimants had, in all claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, out of which Rs.67,000/- was claimed towards repairing, Rs.2,500/- for taking the vehicle to Ahmedabad for repairing and the remaining amount towards the loss incurred by the appellants on account of the vehicle lying in non-use. The Tribunal was of the view that the claimants were entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards compensation due to the vehicle lying in non-use condition for a period of one year and accordingly, computed the total compensation at Rs.80,000/-. However, deducting 50% thereof towards contributory negligence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the claimants with 15% interest thereon. Being aggrieved, the Corporation is in appeal.
5. Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the Page 3 of 6 C/FA/253/1997 JUDGMENT appellant-Corporation, submitted that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the driver of the Corporation was liable to the extent of 50% and in granting interest at the rate of 15% per annum. It was submitted that the Tribunal had also erred in awarding Rs.67,000/- towards repairing, Rs.2,500/- towards transportation as well as Rs.10,000/- under the head of non- use of the vehicle.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Dipak Thakkar, learned advocate for Mr. Y. M. Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record has awarded just compensation and that the impugned award being just, legal and proper, there is no warrant for interference.
7. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the case, as available.
8. From the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is apparent that on behalf of the rival parties, evidence had been led on the question of negligence. The Tribunal, after duly appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that both the drivers of the vehicles were equally negligent and that the accident had occurred on account of equal negligence on the part of the driver of the ST bus as well as the driver of the Fire Fighter. Having regard to the evidence that has come on record, in the opinion of this court, it is not possible to state that the view adopted by the Tribunal is in any manner contrary to the record or based on no material. The findings on the question of negligence, being findings of Page 4 of 6 C/FA/253/1997 JUDGMENT fact, recorded after appreciating the evidence on record, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out therein, there is no warrant for interference. Under the circumstances, the contention that the Tribunal had erred in holding the driver of the ST Corporation to be equally negligent, does not merit acceptance.
9. On the question of quantum of compensation, on behalf of the respondents the bills have been produced on record evidencing payment of Rs.67,000/- towards repairing of the vehicle and Rs.2,500/- towards transportation of the vehicle from Amreli to Ahmedabad. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid amount being based upon the documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal was wholly justified in awarding the compensation in respect of the same. However, it appears that the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards non-use of the vehicle for a period of one year when it was taken for repairing. In this regard, it may be germane to refer to the provisions of section 165 of the Act, which makes provision for "Claims Tribunals" and inter alia lays down that the Claims Tribunals shall be constituted for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Thus, the Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate upon a dispute involving the damages to any property of a third party arising out of the vehicular accident. The Tribunal is not empowered to adjudicate a dispute in respect of damages incurred by the owner of the vehicle on account of the vehicle remaining in non-use, because such damages are in the nature of damages incurred by the owner Page 5 of 6 C/FA/253/1997 JUDGMENT and not damages to the property. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation in respect of non-use of the vehicle. The impugned award, to the extent the same awards Rs.10,000/- towards non-use of the vehicle, therefore, requires to be interfered with.
10. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Since the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards non-use of the vehicle, could not have been awarded, the same is required to be reduced from Rs.80,000/-. The total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.70,000/-. Since 50% of negligence has been attributed to the driver of the Fire Fighter, the claimants would be entitled to recover 50% of total compensation of Rs.70,000/-, that is, Rs.35,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realisation thereof.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal partly succeeds, and is allowed to the following extent.
The respondents No.1 and 2 - original claimants shall be entitled to recover Rs.35,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of filling of the claim petition till realization thereof, from the appellant - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) parmar* Page 6 of 6