AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the appellant GSRTC and learned Advocate Mr. R.K. Mansuri for the original claimants in this group of first appeals.
The appellant GSRTC has challenged the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) FTC Sabarkantha-Himatnagar dated 22.2.2005 below Exh. 5. Application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were filed by the respondents claimants and during the pendency of those applications, application Exh.5 were filed by the claimants u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Alleged accident occurred on 10th September, 2003 at about 6.45 a.m. near the pool on the road from Dholwani Three Rasta towards Bhiloda wherein ST Bus bearing registration No. GJ-1-18-V-6485 was involved. Complaint lodged at Bhiloda Police Station as I CR No. 159/03. The medical treatments are taken at Bhiloda Cottage Hospital, Bhiloda, Civil Hospital, Himatnagar and Private Hospsital Chandramani Ahmedabad. Claimants respondents were demanding Rs. 25,000.00 each on the basis of No Fault Liability with 18 per cent interest. The Tribunal has considered application Exh. 5 filed by the respondents claimants. The Claims Tribunal has considered the relevant documents produced by the claimants, copy of FIR, Panchanamas, certificate of injury and certificate from Cottage Hospital, Bhiloda for medical treatment, certificate from the Government Hospital, Himatnagar for taking medical treatment, certificate of permanent disability given by the Medical Officer and copy of charge sheet and statement obtained by the police.
Before the Claims Tribunal, a contention was raised by the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant that the claimants have not produced X Ray Plats in respect of the injury suffered by the claimants in the accident, therefore, according to the appellants, unless and until those X Ray Plats are produced, Section 140 and 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are not satisfied by the respondents claimants.
Learned Advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the appellant GSRTC submitted that considering the total claim of Rs. 75000/50000, in the main matters u/s 166 of the MV Act, 1988, claim made in an application Exh. 5 being major amount in comparison to the claim in the main matter, the claims tribunal ought not to have granted such an amount.
The Tribunal has considered the submissions made by both the learned advocates and tribunal has examined various certificates produced by the respondent claimants. It is pertinent to note that before the Claims Tribunal, the certificate issued by the medical officer for permanent disability in respect of the present claimants were not disputed by the appellant corporation. Not only that but the genuineness thereof was also not doubted by the appellant corporation before the claims tribunal. The Tribunal has examined the injury certificate for primary medical treatment given to the claimant and also considered the certificate issued by the medical officer for permanent disability and looking to the charge sheet, name of the claimant is mentioned as per certificate and doctor has also certified that the respondent claimant has received permanent disability in the accident and, therefore, tribunal has after considering all such aspects, come to the conclusion that it is not necessary that the X Ray Plats must have to be produced by the claimants but if the permanent disability is certified because of the accident, that can be considered to be enough for the purpose of an application u/s 140 of the M.V Act, 1988. Genuineness of the certificate of permanent disability was not challenged by the appellant before the claims tribunal, therefore, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the certificate of permanent disability prima facie satisfy the requirement of Section 140 and 142 of the Act read with Rule 231 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mithakhan Dinakhan Netiyar and Others, and granted the amount in the interest of justice in favour of the respondents claimants with 6 per cent interest as per the decision of this Court in case of Maniben S. Pandya v. Shashikant P. Shrigalor reported in 2004 GLR 1878.
It is necessary to note one important aspect that an application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is pending before the Claims Tribunal. This amount granted by the Claims Tribunal in an application Exh. 5 u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be adjusted by the appellant when the main application is decided by the Claims Tribunal. So, ultimately, appellant is not the sufferer if the amount awarded by the claims tribunal is given to the claimants. Respondent claimants must have to prove before the tribunal in the main matter that because of the accident, they have received permanent disability, therefore, prima facie, the tribunal is right while considering the medical certificates issued by medical officer that due to accident, respondents claimants have received permanent disability and that itself is enough to satisfy the requirement of Section 140/142 of the MV Act, 1988 read with Rule 231 of the Motor Vehicles Rules.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw on behalf of the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Mansuri on behalf of the respondents claimants in this group of appeals. Considering the reasoning given by the claims tribunal, according to my opinion, the claims tribunal has not committed any error while passing the orders in favour of the claimants because ultimately, this amount is subject to adjustment against the final award that may be passed by the claims tribunal u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, there is no any substance in these appeals filed by the appellants before this Court and accordingly, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.