AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ''GSRTC'' for brevity) has preferred the present First Appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgment and award dated 10th April 1985 rendered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 173 of 1983 consolidated with MACP No. 220 of 1983 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad.
The Claim Petitions before the Tribunal arose on account of an accident which took place on 16th November 1982 on Nadiad-Dakor Road of Kheda District between ST Bus bearing Registration No. GRR 8206 and jeep car bearing Registration No. GTW 4958 resulting into death of one person. The Tribunal while considering the Claim Petition has recorded the facts about the accident as under.
(7) Opponent No. 2 has filed its written statement at exh.27 in MSC Petition No. 173/1983 and the same written statement is adopted by opponent No. 1 vide purshis exh.8. The S.T. Corporation, opponent No. 2 in M.A.C. Petition No. 220 of 1983, has filed its written statement at exh.14. The S.T. driver has not filed his written statement in this petition. The terms of objections of all these written statement are confined to following:
It is admitted that on 18.11.1982 the deceased was travelling jeep car belonging to GEB and that the opponent No. 3 was driving the said jeep rashly and negligently. It is denied that the opponent No. 1 was also driving the bus rashly and negligently and the head on collision took place between these two vehicles. It is submitted that opponent No. 1 was driving the S.T. Bus from Ahmedabad to Zalod in ordinary speed on the left hand side of the road and sounding the horn whenever necessary. When the bus reached near the place of accident, as there was a curve and culvert, the opponent No. 1 slowed down the speed of the bus, but the driver of the jeep who was coming from the opposite direction drove the jeep in full speed, in the centre of the road and the hood of the jeep got entangled with the front light of the S.T. Bus. After the accident the driver of the jeep took his jeep on his left hand side of the road. The accident, therefore, took place because of the entire negligence of opponent No. 3. Nine persons were travelling in this jeep. Opponent No. 3 could not control the jeep and the accident took place.
The Tribunal recorded the case of the appellant-GSRTC as set out in para 9, which reads as under:
(9) Opponents Nos. 3 and 4 have filed their written statement at exh.21 in M.A.C. Petition No. 173 of 1983 the terms of objections of which are confined to following:
It is not admitted that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of opponent No. 3. It is submitted that the deceased was an employee of GEB at Umreth and on the date of accident he was on duty and occupied his seat in the jeep. Opponent No. 3 was driving the vehicle very carefully and cautiously. While the S.T. driver was completely negligent. The S.T. driver drove the bus without consideration of the traffic on the road at the relevant time. When the jeep car was on the extreme left, the S.T. driver did not drive his bus on the correct side and bumped against the jeep which was on its correct side and caused the accident. The S.T. driver at the relevant place overtook another S.T. Bus and at that time the S.T. Bus collided with the jeep.
The learned advocate for the appellants has produced a copy of the Panchnama and a sketch and vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the bus driver of the appellant-GSRTC was responsible to the extent of 100% for the accident in question.
Perusal of the Panchnama and the sketch makes it clear that the road proceeding from Nadiad to Dakor had left hand curve. The S.T. Bus was proceeding from Nadiad to Dakor, whereas the Jeep was coming from Dakor to Nadiad. While negotiating left hand curve, normal tendency of the vehicle will be to stretch towards right hand edge of the road. That being so it was the S.T. Bus which went wrong side and caused accident. In this regard the Tribunal has observed in para 28 as under:
(28) I have occasion to pass by this road several times and I take a judicial notice of the fact that near village Parvata there is a culvert and there is a curve. While going from Nadiad to Dakor that curve is a left hand curve, whereas while coming from Dakor to Nadiad, the curve is a right hand curve.
In this view of the matter the finding recorded by the Tribunal on aspect of negligence are found to be just and proper.
Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, the Tribunal raised issues which are at Exh. as set out in para No. 13 which read as under:
(13) From the pleadings of the parties, the following common issues were framed in M.A.C. Petition No. 173 of 1983 at exh.22:
Whether the applicants prove that the opponent No. 1 during the course of employment of opponent No. 2 and the opponent No. 3 during the course of employment of opponent No. 4 drove the S.T. Bus No. GRR-8206 and jeep car No. GTM-4958 respectively rashly and/or negligent and thereby caused death of Ramjibhai and damage to jeep Car?
What amount, if any, are the applicants entitled to receive a compensation and from which the opponent or opponents?
What order?
The findings to the said issues are recorded in para 14 which read as under:
In the affirmative opponent No. 1, the S.T. Driver. M In the negative against opponent No. 3.
Rs. 1,03,084/- in MACP No. 173/1983 and Rs. 3,934/- in MACP No. 220/1983 from S.T. Driver and S.T. Corporation, who are jointly and severally held liable. The claim against opponents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 stands dismissed in M.A.C. Petition No. 173/1983.
As per order below.
This Court, considering the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and examining the impugned judgment and award finds no infirmity or error having been committed by the Tribunal. Hence no interference is warranted in this First Appeal. The First Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.