JUDGMENT :

1. The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant – Gujarat State road Transport Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) and 10th (Adhoc) Additional District Judge, Bhuj - Kuchchh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1998, whereby, the Tribunal has held and directed the original opponent No.2 – S.T. Corporation to pay the compensation of Rs.4,98,800/- to the original claimant.

2. The brief facts leading to the present First Appeal are that, on 01.11.1997, the respondent No.1 – original claimant, along with his friends, was going to the house of his relatives. They were going by foot and were walking on left hand side of the road in moderate speed and with full care. When they reached near Police Ground, J.T. Road, at that time, the S.T. Bus bearing registration No.GJ-01-Z-994, which was drive by respondent No.2 herein, came with full speed and in negligent manner and dashed with the respondent No.1. As a result, the respondent No.1 had sustained serious injuries. He was shifted to Mandvi Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted at Bhuj G.K. General Hospital for further treatment. Hence, the respondent No.1 – original claimant filed M.A.C.P. No.723 of 1998 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,98,800/-.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant – S.T. Corporation has filed the present First Appeal before this Court.

4. Heard Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – S.T. Corporation and Mr.Hiren Modi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 – original claimant.

5. Mrs.Bhatt, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the FIR at Exh.-52 and panchnama at Exh.-53. She submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred sole negligency to the GSRTC and also erred in appreciating the written statement filed by the GSRTC at Exh.- 16, wherein, the appellant has narrated how the incident had occurred. She submitted that the respondent No.1 – original claimant has deposed in the Government Hospital while taking treatment that the accident occurred due to his negligency, there is no negligency on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus. She further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the contentions raised by the S.T. Corporation before the Tribunal, and hence, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the present Appeal may be allowed.

6. Per contra, Mr.Modi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 – original claimant, submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned award. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is not having any infirmity and no interference is required to be called for and, therefore, the present appeal may be dismissed.

7. I have considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and considered the facts of the case and perused the record and proceedings. It is the case of the appellant before this Court that, on the eve of Diwali, while some persons were igniting fire crackers on the road due to which people were running here and there. Under such circumstance, the injured claimant also ran and dashed with the door of the S.T. Bus, hence, he sustained injuries due to his negligency and therefore, neither the bus driver of the S.T. bus was liable for the alleged accident nor the S.T. Corporation is liable to pay any compensation as they are challenging the liability. They have also filed their written statement before the Tribunal and raised the contention. At Exh.-16