The court upheld the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' in attributing 100% negligence to the bus driver, while ruling that the fiat car driver was non-negligent.

JUDGMENT :

(J.C. Doshi, J.)

All three captioned appeals preferred by the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited., arises from the selfsame judgment and award, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, they are decided by this common judgment.

2. First Appeal No.2355 of 2006 challenges the judgment and award passed in MACP No. 1020 of 1996 by the learned MACT, Vadodara on 31/01/2006. First Appeal No.1432 of 2011 challenges judgment and award rendered in MACP No.994 of 1996 on 29/03/2010 and First Appeal No.1433 of 2011 challenges judgment and award rendered in MACP No.1004 of 1996 on 29/03/2010 by the MACT (Aux), Vadodara. All three claim petitions arose from one and same road accident.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased-Sakil was travelling with Saumitra and Mohammad Ali in a fiat car bearing Registration No GJ-06-K-4441 on National Highway No.8. Opponent no.1, the driver of the luxury bus bearing Registration No.GJ-2-1-3803 was driving the bus rashly and negligently in and excessive high speed and dashed the said fiat car from opposite and smashed all the three occupants in the car resulting in the death of Sakil and Saumitra on the spot and Mohmad Ali on the way to the hospital. The org. claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. The org. claimants have joined both the insurance companies of both the vehicles and asked for the compensation from opponent no.3 and stated that even if the driver of the car was also held negligent, he is entitled to claim compensation from both the opponents.

3.1 The opponent no. 1.2.5.6 are served but has not filed their appearance and not remained present before the court. The opponent No.3, the United India Insurance co ltd and opponent No.7 the New India Insurance co ltd has filed their written statements. The opponent no.4, driver has filed his appearance at exh-36, the opponent no-5 has not filed his written statement. The driver of the luxury remained absent during the trial. The learned tribunal after full-fledged trial considering the evidence produced before it held the org. opponent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,37,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavaty for the appellant – United India Insurance Company, learned Advocate Mr.Sunil Parikh and Mr.Palak Thakkar appearing for New India Assurance Company and learned Advocate Mr.Radhey Vyas appearing for the claimant.

5. Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavaty submits that United India Insurance Company has filed appeal being First Appeal No.2355 of 2006 only on the ground of holding the luxury bus driver, as 100% negligent in causing the road accident. He would submit that tribunal was totally unjustified in attributing 100% negligence to the driver of the luxury bus as it was coming from Vadodara to Surat on correct way and side. He would further submit that even as per the documentary evidence relied upon by the claimant demonstrate that at the time of road accident one fiat car was coming from Village Por to Vadodara dashed to luxury bus going from Vadodara to Surat on right way and side.

5.1 He would further submit that perusing the FIR and Panchnama and the damages received to the luxury bus as well as fiat car, envision that fiat car was coming on the wrong side dashed to the luxury car in head-on collision manner resulting into the death of two persons and one died on way to the hospital whereas the one person sitting in the luxury bus received injuries.

5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavaty taking this court through the FIR and Panchnama would further submit that luxury bus received scratches and damages on front side and even on the cleaner side. He would submit that fiat car also received damage on the entire front part of car and got caved which is also established and proved. He would further submit that if the scene of accident is visualized, it in