Bhanuchandra Manilal Shah vs Gagansinh Tarasinh Gurkha & Anr

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in MACP No.648 of 2012.

Heard learned advocate for the appellant. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2.

The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the judgment contrary to the settled principles of law and has erred in drawing unwarranted inferences from the evidence on record; therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the complainant failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus.

Upon going through the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal, the written statement filed by the respondent at Exhibit 13, and the observations made in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment, and in light of the facts stated in the claim petition, wherein the claimant specifically stated that on the date of the accident, i.e., 30.09.2010 at about 7:00 p.m., while he was standing on the Ambaji Platform at Geet Mandir S.T. Bus Stand, Idar–Himmatnagar, and was waiting for an S.T. Bus to go to Idar, opponent No.1 came driving his S.T. Bus bearing Registration No. GJ-18-Y-3992 at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. While taking a semi-circular turn, the rear portion of the said bus hit the appellant, as a result of which he fell on the road, and the rear tyre of the bus ran over his left leg, causing serious injuries. In this regard, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident.

It appears that the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that opponent No.1, the driver of the S.T. Bus, was examined at Exhibit 35 and stated that while the bus was being reversed, the conductor opened the door of the S.T. Bus, and at that time about 200–250 passengers attempted to board the bus. During that period, the appellant allegedly lost his grip on the handle and sustained injuries.

Even if the said version is accepted as it is, the same may at the most amount to a case of contributory negligence. However, once the use and involvement of the vehicle are not in dispute, the learned Tribunal ought to have properly considered the aspect of involvement and negligence in light of the evidence placed on record before it.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the entire claim petition. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal are required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. The opponents shall be at liberty to raise all permissible statutory defences, and the learned Tribunal shall decide the matter independently on its own merits, keeping in mind the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal, which shall decide the claim petition afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and decide the same on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made by this Court, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the Record and Proceedings, if any, to the learned Tribunal forthwith.