Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs Kalubhai Jivabhai Bajaoia and Others

A.P. Ravani, J.—These three petitions have been filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the award dated January 11,1983 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 101,102 and 103 of 1982.

That on February 13, 1982 an accident took place between a bus bearing No. GTH 5335 and a jeep bearing No. 5589. The vehicles collided with each other somewhere near village Kuwarsi on Danta-Ambaji road in Palanpur district. The inmates of jeep were injured on account of the accident. The injured preferred claim petition Nos. 101, 102 and 103 of 1982. The. Tribunal held the drivers of both the vehicles guilty of negligence and apportioned the negligence as follows:

75% of negligence to the driver of jeep car 25% of negligence to the driver of the bus....

Having regard to the nature of injuries and other circumstances, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the claimant of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 101 of 1982, Rs. 1,500/- to the claimant of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 102 of 1982 and Rs. 2,500/- to the claimant of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 103 of 1982. Against the aforesaid award passed by the Tribunal, the G.S.R.T.C. has preferred these petitions.

The contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner-Corporation is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever on the basis of which it can be said that the ST bus driver was in any way negligent. Counsel for the Petitioner-Corporation pointed out from the award that even according to the observations made by the Tribunal, the claimant himself admitted that the ST bus was taken on the correct side and it had stopped. It is also contended that one of the claimants Hirabhai, Exh. 25, has admitted that while he was waiting for the ST bus the jeep had come running at a highly excessive speed. The jeep had stopped and he was taken as a passenger and again the jeep was driven at an excessive speed. Thus when the jeep was driven with excessive speed, it collided with the standing ST bus. It appears that there is some substance in the grievance made by the G.S.R.T.C. Had this been the original proceeding, probably the view could have been taken that the driver of the ST bus was not at all negligent. It also appears that the view taken by the Tribunal for ascribing 25% of negligence to the driver of the ST bus rests on a very thin evidence. The Tribunal has based its order on the fact that the ST bus was almost in the middle of the road and both the vehicles had collided with each other on their respective right hand side. It appears that the Tribunal is probably influenced by the fact that the ST bus is a bigger vehicle while compared to the jeep. It would have been better had this fact remained absent while assessing the evidence in this case. Still however, though the view taken by the Tribunal does not seem to be perfectly in accordance with the correct principles of appreciation of evidence, the same is not such that it may be interfered with in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In all these three matters the total liability of the Corporation will come to Rs. 6,000/-(rupees six thousand only). The ST Corporation though a public sector undertaking, is required to be run on business principles. For such a small amount of Rs. 6,000/- involved in all the three matters further expenditure by way of this litigation could have and should have been avoided. Payment of one or two thousand rupees here or there on account of compensation should not be made a matter of prestige and principle. The persons responsible for and in charge of such litigation should think beforehand that, would they have incurred the further expenditure on litigation, had it been their private matter? Is there any principle involved in such matter? Even if there is any such principle involved, is the principle so important and vital for the administration of public sector undertaking like S.T. Corporation, that the expenditure by way of litigation has got to be incurred?

In First Appeal No. 405 of 1975 decided on November 3, 1982, this Court (S.L. Talati, J. and myself) has made observation regarding the approach that should be adopted by the public sector undertaking and other public authorities in respect of the litigations in court. In that case an agricultural labourer had come in contact with live electrical wire and had died. The heirs and legal representatives of deceased agricultural labourer had to put up a legal battle for more than 13 years to obtain compensation amount. The court observed:

In most of the litigation in our courts, either public corporations or the Central or State Government is a party litigant. Before embarking upon a legal combat, it would be proper for the public authorities to pose questions such as-

(1) Will the legal battle serve any public cause?

(2) Are the issues involved of general public importance that they require decision of the Court?

(3) Is it not worthwhile to adopt reasonable, practical and business-like attitude and put an end to the matter?

(4) Will it serve the cause of justice or is it only for the purpose of determination of some technical points?

(5) If the question is pertaining to payment of compensation to a citizen, on account of bodily injury or death, would it be proper for public authorities, to adopt totally unreasonable attitude and raise all possible technical contentions?

(6) Litigation for whose benefit and at whose cost?

(7) Is the issue involved such that it has bearing on finances of the institution? Is it going to affect the institution permanently?

We are sure that measured from any of the aforesaid criteria, the answer would be that it would have been better for the Respondent-Corporation not to have entered into such protracted litigation and leave the family members of the deceased in miserable plight for more than 13 years. We hope that in future the public authorities will be well advised to adopt a reasonable and practical attitude in all court matters and will not try to carry the matters to their logical end unless the issue involved is of genera! public importance and it is going to have permanent effect on their finances and/or the administration in general.

These observations apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case with equal force. It would have been much better had the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation avoided further litigation by way of these three petitions in which petty claims of a few thousand rupees are involved, How much cost will be incurred after this litigation? How much time will be invested (wasted?) by court, insurance company and the G.S.R.T.C. itself? It is hoped that pragmatic and business-like approach will be adopted in future.

In above view of the matter, I do not think it proper to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.