IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor accident case and the assessment of compensation for the dependents of the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant – Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has challenged the judgment and award dated 27.11.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in M.A.C.P. No.894 of 2006.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put succinctly as under :-

On 13.09.2006, the deceased who was working as Driver with the Gujarat Maritime Board was coming towards Bhavnagar by driving a Jeep bearing Registration No.GJ-4-D-4835 of the Gujarat Maritime Board. The jeep was being driven slowly and on the correct side of the road. When the Jeep reached near Gokulpara, at 7.30 pm, it met with an accident with a Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18-V-9264. As a result of this accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death.

3. Learned Advocate Ms. Vasavdutta Bhatt alongwith learned Advocate Mr. C.S. Shukla appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the sole negligence of the driver of the State Transport Corporation Bus and has also failed to appreciate the First Information Report and Panchnama and has wrongly attributed 100% negligence to the Bus driver while the evidence on record suggests that the deceased jeep driver was also negligent in his driving.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. C.S. Shukla has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Legal Heirs of deceased Mohanbhai Shankarbhai Patel Arunaben Mohanbhai Patel v. Stiponiya Gulam Mohammedvali reported in 2023 (O) AIJEL-HC 24273 and submitted that the Panchnama relied upon refers, that the position of the vehicle had been shifted and therefore, the same would not show the correct picture of the accident. It is further submitted that both the vehicles were damaged and hence, it was a case of head on collision and the evidence requires to be appreciated, considering the contributory negligence of the jeep driver.

5. Per contra, it is submitted by learned Advocate appearing for the claimants Mr. Bhavin B. Thakkar that the evidence of the bus driver was noted at Exhibit 50, which was compared to the evidence of the eye witness who was travelling in the Jeep at Exhibit 42 and the learned Tribunal has believed the eye witness to the accident and has found that there was no reason to disbelieve his evidence. It is also submitted that the deposition of the bus driver did not disclose the fact that the truck was lying in a stationery position on the road on which the bus was going and while overtaking the truck, the bus driver had come on the side of the road where the jeep was coming from Gandhinagar and was going towards Bhavnagar and therefore, it is urged that there is no need to interfere with the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and on perusing the records of the case, it appears that the evidence of the witness – Tarachand R. Variani who had given the First Information Report on 13.09.2006 was examined by the claimants and the First Information Report was against the bus driver. The First Information Report noted that the accident had occurred in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. on the road near Ganesh Patia where the complainant had attributed rashness and negligence of the bus driver and had stated that because of the accident, all of them who were sitting in the Jeep sustained injuries. The panchnama was drawn on the next day in the morning between 8.00 – 8.45 hours, where reference of the Truck had been made and the place of accident is Bhavnagar – Tarapur Road, between Village Ganeshgadh to Gokulpara. The tar road was noted of 22 feet width and damage to the bus has been noted, which is on the driver side. The damage is from the head light and to the upper part of the glass. The route of the bus was Una, Mumbai and the rear side of the bus and the Truck bearing Registration No.GJ-18-T-1235 was noted to be in a stationery position at a distance of 10 ft., the driver side ty