High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 09 GUJ CK 0174

State of Gujarat and Another vs Babiben and Others

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 21 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
First Appeal No. 654 of 1985

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 360 words

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.

2.

The appellants-State of Gujarat and its officers have filed this appeal u/s 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 05.09.1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 390 of 1982 whereunder, the claimants, widow, one major and four minor sons have been ordered to be paid a sum of Rs. 41,500/ - with 6% interest from the date of the petition till the date of payment as Sherabhai Chhitabhai Tadvi died in the accident occurred on 04.08.1982 involving the bus bearing No. GRJ 9821 owned by appellant No. 2. The Tribunal has given cogent reasoning for holding the driver negligent and responsible for occurrence of the accident and awarded sum of Rs. 41,500/ - to the claimants.

3.

Looking to the well reasoned order of the Tribunal, the reasoning for not holding the respondent-company liable and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the amount awarded, this First Appeal is required to be dismissed as the judgment and award cannot be said to be, in any way, suffering from any infirmity so as to call for any interference in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The fact has come on record that though the vehicle in question was insured but covered by third party risk whereas, the deceased being staff member of the appellant No. 2 was travelling in the bus and on account of negligent driving of the bus driver, the death of the deceased was caused. This being a fact which can be said to be undisputable, the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with and, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the pettiness of the amount awarded, this Court is of the view that no interference is called for at this stage and the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

4.

The amount which has been invested under the order of the Tribunal, be disbursed to the claimants after proper verification.