AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Advocate Ms. Neha Kayastha with Ms.Sejal K. Mandavia for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr.Vaibhav N. Sheth for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4.
The appellant Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is owner of Bus No. GJ-18-Y-3559, which was involved in the accident whereas respondents are legal heirs of the victim of said road accident namely Raisingbhai Punjabhai Chauhan.
The respondents have filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1047 of 2011 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of District Kheda at Nadiad claiming Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation from the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the accidental death of deceased victim Raisingbhai Punjabhai Chauhan.
It is undisputed fact that on 05th July, 2011, there was an accident between motorcycle No.GJ-7-AM-2540 driven by the deceased victim and S.T. Bus No.GJ-18-Y-3559 owned by the appellant. However, so far as nature of the accident is concerned, there is a rival claim by both the sides. On one hand, it is the case of the respondents before the Tribunal that when deceased Raisingbhai was going to Mahudha from Mahemdavad driving motorcycle with moderate speed on correct side, the driver of the S.T. Bus has came in full speed driving his bus negligently, from backside of the motorcycle and while overtaking the motorcycle hit it from the front of the bus, which resulted into fatal injuries to the victim. Whereas on the other side, it is the case of the appellant that deceased was coming from opposite direction with two pillion riders and since there were three persons on motorcycle, the deceased has lost control on the motorcycle and thereby came on the wrongside of the road and dashed with the bus and therefore, S.T. Driver was not negligent at all.
To ascertain the correct position, I have called the appellant to refer relevant documents viz. the written statement; F.I.R.; panchnama of the place of the accident and deposition of the witness. The appellant has placed on record such documents which are to be kept on record. The perusal of such documents so also impugned judgment makes it clear that there is no substance in the plea and submission by the appellant including the driver in his deposition at Exhibit 22. The perusal of panchnama makes it clear that the bus could not stop for the distance of 30 feet even after the impact with the motorcycle. In that case, if motorcycle dashed head-on with the bus then bus would have run over the motorcycle and all its riders whereas it is undisputed fact that only driver of the motorcycle had died when he was thrown off from the motorcycle because of the heavy impact on the backside of the motorcycle. The Tribunal has discussed the relevant evidence properly for coming to the conclusion that driver of the S.T. Bus was sole negligent for the accident, I do not find any irregularity in such calculation. The documents referred hereinabove also confirms such conclusion, therefore, there is no substance in the appeal so as to confirm that S.T. Driver was not negligent at all or that there is contributory negligence on the part of the victim.
It may not be ignored that after proper investigation of the accident, the Investigating Agency has filed chargesheet against the driver of the bus. It is also contended that driver of the bus has been acquitted by the Criminal Court and therefore, appellant may not be held liable to pay the compensation. There is no substance in such submissions also for simple reason that it is settled legal position that principle of res ipsa loquitur would apply to said cases and acquittal of driver by criminal Court would not result into confirmation that driver of the vehicle was not negligent at all. It is quite clear that tortuous liability is different then criminal liability, and therefore, consideration of evidence for both such liability is different.
So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, when tribunal has relied upon the decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680and in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma and other Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) for award in all Rs.6,61,260/- for the death of able-bodied earning person aged about 35 years by taking only Rs.3,255/- as monthly earning of such person. Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal and hence appeal stands simultaneously dismissed.
In view of disposal of main matter, connected Civil Application does not survive and hence, the same stands disposed of accordingly.