2002 Supreme(Guj) 680

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.K.RATHOD, K.R.VYAS
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
MARIAMBAI A.ADAMJI - Respondent
First Appeal 95 of 1984
Decided On : 09/12/2002

Headnote:

Corporation Act -First Appeal has been filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ("the GSRTC" for short), challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), (Rural), Narol in M. A. C. Application No. 369 of 1981,Tribunal has dismissed the claim against opponent No. 1 for non-prosecution and allowed the claim of the claimant of Rs. 50,000. 00 against the GSRTC with running interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation the application, i. e. from 18th July 1981 till payment or realisation and the Tribunal further directed the Corporation to pay the applicants costs in proportion to the claim allowed and to bear its own entire costs. The Tribunal further directed that out of the total amount of principal, future interest and costs awarded to the applicant, an amount of Rs. 2,500. 00 and the entire cost amount (minus the deficit court fees) be paid to the applicant in cash. The applicant shall invest, by way of Fixed Deposit in some Nationalised Bank for a period of fifteen years (by renewal from time to time, if necessary) the entire amount of principal and the entire future interest amount with a provision enabling the applicant to collect interest on the deposit every month or every quarter and to spend the same for her own benefit. No loan against, or encashment of, the deposit or any part thereof, shall be allowed till maturity, without the prior permission of the Tribunal. original claimant has filed the claim petition for Rs. 1,60,000. 00 as compensation for loss of dependency benefit suffered by her as a result of death of her husband, which is alleged to have occurred consequent upon the rash and negligent driving of ST Bus by the driver - opponent No. 1 in the course of his employment with the original opponent No. 2 GSRTC. facts of the present appeal are as under:the husband of the original claimant was aged about 46 years on and about and was residing and was working as an Artisan preparing decorative wooden pieces and was earning Rs. 900. 00 per month and he was the only earning member in the family. On the morning, he was travelling as a passenger in the ST bus which was being driven by opponent No. 1 from Rajkot to go to Godhra. According to the original claimant, Opponent No. 1 was driving the bus at an extremely fast speed and negligently with the result that the bus met with an accident, as a result of which, the husband of the applicant sustained serious injuries and remained confined to bed on which day he died. In the application, the applicant has submitted that she had to spend about Rs. 5,000. 00 for the treatment of her husband -Held WE have considered the submissions made by both learned Advocates and we have perused the original record as well as the judgment delivered by the Tribunal. According to our opinion, the oral evidence of the ST bus driver vide Exh. 35 is sufficient to prove the negligence on the part of the ST bus driver. The accident occurred at the junction the relevant time, the bus driver had seen the truck coming from the right side and the other truck parked on the left side. Even though the bus driver was unable to take sufficient care and to stop his vehicle, the bus was moving further and due to that, the accident had taken place. When the bus was about to cross the junction, at that time, on the right side, the truck came and therefore, according to the version of the bus driver, he moved the bus on left by which his bus dashed with the truck. This itself suggests with regard to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the bus driver. The parked truck was seen by him which was on the same side and it was parked on the correct side. Therefore, in such circumstances, the bus driver can avoid the accident if he had taken sufficient care while crossing the junction, but no sufficient care has been taken by the bus driver knowing fully well that on the left side, the parked truck was there and even then he tried to cross the junction, at the relevant time, and the accident occurred. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is that the bus driver cannot be exonerated from the charge of negligence in driving the bus and we agree with the finding given by the Tribunal. there is no error committed by the Tribunal while deciding the application filed by the original claimant. The Tribunal has also rightly awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Learned Advocate Mr. Raval appearing for the appellant has not been able to point any other infirmity in the said award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, according to our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error which requires any interference by this Court and we are in total agreement with the finding given by the Tribunal. There being no substance in the appeal, the same is dismissed. The interim relief, if any, which has been granted by this Court shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs -Appeal is Dismissed.