JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 30.5.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxi) & 14th Addl. District Judge, Vadodara at Savli, in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1688 of 2015 (Old MACP No. 710 of 2013), whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.2,02,200/- towards compensation to the original claimant (husband of the deceased), the Gujarat Road Transport Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short) has filed present appeal.

2. Present appeal is filed by the Corporation on the ground of 100% negligency fasten on part of the original opponent No.2.

3. The brief facts giving rise to present appeal read as under:-

3.1 On 29.04.2013, between 08:00 and 08:30 A.M., the claimant and his wife i.e., deceased Sarojben Takhatsinh Sodhapar were going from Dakor to Thasra on Motorcycle No. GJ-6FN-6712. Deceased Sarojben was a pillion rider and the claimant Takhatsinh Himmatsinh Sodhaparmar was driving the said vehicle in a moderate speed and on the proper side of the road.

3.2 As soon as they reached on Dakor-Godhra road and passing Pushpanjali, the original opponent no. 1, S.T. Bus driver, having registration number GJ-18-Y-7264, came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Motorcycle from its back side.

3.3 In this accident deceased has sustained brutal injuries and succumbed to death while the claimant has sustained grievous injuries.

3.4 Therefore, the husband of the deceased has filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1688 of 2015 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxi) & 14th Addl. District Judge, Vadodara at Savli.

3.5 The learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence placed on record has passed impugned judgment and award dated 30.5.2018 granting compensation of Rs.2,02,200/- in favour of the husband of the deceased (original claimant).

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the accident has occurred due to negligency of the driver of the motorcycle involved in the accident. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the 50% contributory negligency be held on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged by the person who is not eyewitness of the accident, therefore, the version of the FIR is not to be true. Considering all these facts he submitted that the impugned judgment and award may be quashed and set aside.

7. On the other hand Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim learned Counsel appearing for the claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence place on record and after taking into account all the relevant aspects, passed impugned judgment and award and that therefore, present appeal may not be interfered with. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Hakim, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision dated 21.12.2021 passed by this Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Fajana Wd/o Yusuf Daud Ibrahim in First Appeal No. 4121 of 2009.

7.1 So far as the contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant about the contributory of negligency, learned advocate for the respondent – claimant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kamlaben Valjibhai Vora reported in (2001) 3 GLR 2528. In the case of Kamlaben Valjibhai Vora (supra), this Court has observed in Para-12 as under:

“(12) Therefore, the first question which is required to be seriously examined is with regard to the cause of accident, accountability and the issue of rashness and negligence pleaded by the claimants and challenged by the appellant. Undoubtedly, the issue of negligence is an important and integral part of branch of Law of Tort. The burden of proving the negligence is on the party, like that,