Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Iqbal Sidiqbhai & 4 on 11 March, 2014
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
C/FA/311/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 311 of 2014
With
FIRST APPEAL NO. 312 of 2014
TO
FIRST APPEAL NO. 313 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 958 of 2014
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 311 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 959 of 2014
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 312 of 2014
TO
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 960 of 2014
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 313 of 2014
================================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION....Appellant(s)
Versus
IQBAL SIDIQBHAI & 4....Defendant(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR MURALIN DEVNANI, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 5
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date: 11/03/2014
ORAL ORDER
All these three appeals under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Page 1 of 7 C/FA/311/2014 ORDER (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at the instance of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") are directed against the common judgment and award dated 7th March 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and Second Additional District Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in Motor Accident Claim Petitions No.105 of 2004, 622 of 2003 and 623 of 2003 respectively.
2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the on 30.03.2003, there was an accident involving three vehicles viz. a State Road Transport Bus bearing No. GJ-18V-8117 (hereinafter referred to as "the bus") wherein Iqbal Sidiqbhai, the claimant in Claim Case No.105 of 2004 (F.A. No.311 of 2014), was travelling as a passenger; a scooter bearing No. GJ-3H- 8735 (hereinafter referred to as "the scooter") of which Lokchand alias Lokesh Tekchand the claimant in Claim Case No.312 of 2003 (F.A. No.312) was the pillion rider and Virubhai Mulchand the claimant in Claim Case No. 623 of 2003 (F.A. No.313 of 2014) was the driver and a truck bearing No.GJ-14T-3074 (hereinafter referred to as "the truck", wherein all the three claimants sustained injuries. It was the case of the claimants that the bus was being driven by its driver in excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which it dashed against the scooter and the scooter in turn rammed into a stationary truck. On account of the said accident, the claimants sustained serious injuries and hence, they had filed separate claim petitions before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record exonerated the driver of the truck from any liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the accident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the rider of the scooter No. GJ-3H-8735 and accordingly, partly allowed the claim petitions. In Claim Case No.105 of 2004 filed by the passenger of the bus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- under all the heads, including Page 2 of 7 C/FA/311/2014 ORDER medical treatment, transport charges, actual loss of income, etc. with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realization thereof with proportionate costs. Insofar as Claim Case No. 622 of 2003 is concerned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,34,280/-. In Claim Case No.623 of 2003, though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,34,140/-, it held that since there was contributory negligence to the extent of fifteen per cent on the part the said claimant, the compensation is required to be reduced to that extent and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.1,14,020/- with eight per cent interest from the date of petition till realization thereof. Being aggrieved, the Corporation is in appeal.
4. Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant in each of the appeals, assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly to the extent the Tribunal has exonerated the driver of the truck from the liability to pay any compensation. It was submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective, more particularly the panchnama of scene of accident and the deposition of the driver of the bus (Exh. 72). It was submitted that from the deposition of the driver of the bus it is apparent that the accident had taken place on account of the fault on the part of the drivers of the scooter and the truck, and that the Tribunal had erred in exonerating the owner of the truck and its insurance company from the liability to pay compensation. Moreover, the scooter was being driven by the injured claimant with two pillion riders on it, in contravention of the rules. It was, accordingly, urged that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the Corporation and the driver of the scooter and hence, the appeals require consideration and deserve to be admitted.
Page 3 of 7 C/FA/311/2014 ORDER5. On the other hand, Mr. Murali N. Devnani, learned advocate for the respondent No.5, viz. driver of the scooter in question, submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding the rider of the scooter liable for causing the accident even to the extent of fifteen per cent, and that the drivers of the bus and the truck ought to have been held liable for causing the accident and for payment of compensation.
6. Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 - National Insurance Corporation Limited, the insurer of truck No. GH-14T-307 submitted that the Tribunal has after due and proper appreciation of evidence on record arrived at the correct conclusion that the accident had not occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and was accordingly, justified in exonerating the owner of the truck and the insurance company from the liability to pay any compensation. Referring to the panchnama of the scene of the accident, it was pointed out that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that there was any fault on the part of the driver of the truck in the causation of the accident. It was, accordingly, urged that the appeals being devoid of merit are required to be dismissed at the threshold.
7. This court had considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and has perused the record and proceedings of the case. A perusal of the record reveals that the claimant Iqbal Sidiqbhai, who was a passenger in the bus, has in his examination- in-chief stated that the accident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. He has deposed to the effect that the driver of the bus was driving the bus with excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and had dashed with the scooter and the truck; that three vehicles were involved in the accident, and that a first information report had been lodged against the driver of the bus. In his cross- examination, he has denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred Page 4 of 7 C/FA/311/2014 ORDER not on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus but on account of negligence on the part of rider of the scooter. In his cross- examination, it has further come out that the bus had dashed with the scooter and thereafter had stopped behind the truck which was parked in the compound of Kailash Petrol Pump. He has admitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck.
8. The record further reveals that a first information report came to be lodged against the driver of the bus alleging that he was driving the bus in full speed, and in a rash and negligent manner. A perusal of the panchnama of scene of the accident reveals that the road where the accident had taken place, is a tar road going from Ahmedabad to Rajkot, and that, at a distance of eleven feet from the edge of the road, there is an open compound of a petrol pump, wherein there is a truck filled with gas bottles. The said truck is parked in a queue behind other vehicles and is stationary. The said truck is lying at a distance of eleven feet from the edge of the tar road. Behind the rear tyre of the left side of the truck, a Vespa scooter is lying, which is in a damaged condition, and on the western side of the scooter at a distance of about five feet, there is a State Road Transport bus. The radiator and the engine portion of the bus are depressed and the glass on the driver side is broken. The glass of the head light of the bus as well as its steering is found to be broken and the dashboard has protruded inside the bus. The upper ceiling of the bus is also damaged. The panchnama further reveals that from the road till the place where the bus was lying at a distance of about 20 feet, there were brack marks and marks of tyres.
9. Thus, from the scene of offence panchnama it is apparent that the truck in question was parked in the compound of the petrol pump at a distance of about eleven feet from edge of the tar road. The scooter was lying next to it and the bus behind it. From the version of the accident, as given by Page 5 of 7 C/FA/311/2014 ORDER claimant-Iqbal Sidiqbhai, the bus had dashed against the scooter, which in turn, rammed into the stationary truck. Having regard to the fact that the truck was lying beyond the tar road at a distance of about eleven feet, as rightly contended by learned advocate for respondent No.4 insurance company, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the driver of the truck was in any manner responsible for the occurrence of the accident. From the facts as emerging from the record, it appears that it was the bus which had dashed against the scooter, and it was on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus that the accident had taken place. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was wholly justified in exonerating the owner and insurance company of the truck from the liability to pay compensation in connection with the accident. It may be noted that the learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to point out that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has been ignored. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has recorded findings of fact and has based its conclusion thereon. From the above discussion, it is not possible for this court to state that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are in any manner perverse to the record of the case, or that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal based on the findings recorded by it is erroneous. Under the circumstance, in the absence of any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, there is no warrant for interference by this court.
10. It may be noted that the challenge in these appeals is limited to the extent the owner of the truck and the insurance company have been exonerated from the liability to pay compensation, and the quantum of compensation is not the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
11. For the foregoing reasons the appeals fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
In light of the order passed in the main appeals, the civil applications for stay do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
Page 6 of 7 C/FA/311/2014 ORDER(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) sndevu Page 7 of 7