JINA MERU Vs. NARSHINHBHAI MATHURBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of appeals arisen out of the decision of the Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar, dated 6th March 1951 in Claim Applications Nos. 19 to 28, 23 to 48 61 to 74, 91 and 131 to 134 all of 1980 and 12 of 1981. A motor truck No. GIG 1498 met with an accident on the morning of 18th October 1979 at about 10.00 A.M. approximately 80 feet from the railway crossing on the New Port Road, Bhavnagar. At the time when the said truck set with the accident, 75 persons were travelling therein four of them died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident, several others were injured and some escaped unhurt. The said accident gave rise to 46 claim petitions and the Claims Tribunal made 46 awards for verying amounts in favour of the claimants. Against the said 46 awards the present 34 First Appeals and 12 Revision Applications were preferred in this Court. Since the Revision Applications concerned awards of less than Rs. 2,000/- they were rejected on 18th February 1982 without prejudice to the right of the present appellants to contest these appeals on merits.

(2.) THE claims were made before the Tribunal on the ground that Motor Truck GIG 1498 carrying 75 passengers met with the accident in question on being brushed by another mother truck bearing No. GTS 6141 driven by the third opponent, passed by the fourth opponent and insured with the fifth opponent at the relevant time. The claimants contended that on the 22'6" wide road, motor truck No. GTS 6141 driven by the third opponent while attempting to overtake GTG 1498 carrying 75 passengers dashed against the latter vehicle as a result whereof the latter vehicle overturned and fell to its left causing injuries to the inmates of the vehicle. As stated earlier, four persons died as a result of the accident and several others were injured. The motor truck GTG 1498 was driven by the first opponent and was owned by the second opponent and was insured with the sixth opponent at the date of the accident. The Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because the other truck GTS 6141 dashed against the vehicle carrying 75 passengers and therefore, the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle were liable in damages. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the driver of truck No. GTG 1498 and also partly responsible for the accident and accordingly held the driver and owner of that vehicle also liable in damages. The insurance company of that vehicle, sixth opponent, was however absolved from liability on the ground that the vehic'e being a goods vehicle it was not open to opponent No. 1 to permit passengers to travel on payment of Re. 1/-per bead as alleged by the claimants and admitted by the driver of the said vehicle. So far as the quantum of damages is concerned, that is not the matter in challenge before this Court. The driver, owner and insurance company of the vehicle GTS 6141 have, however, preferred these appeals mainly on two grounds, namely (i) the Claims Tribunal was in error in concluding that the Vehicle GTS 6141 was in any way concerned with or involved in the accident in question and (ii) the Claims Tribunal was in error exonerating the insurance company, sixth opponent (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) from liability to pay the award money to the claimants.

(3.) THE oral evidence on record is of victims of the accident. We do not propose to go through the evidence of all the victims but we taink it would suffice to refer to the oral evidence of a few of them. Babu Mohan desposes that before the accident the driver of GTS 6141 tried to overtake their vehicle aad while doing so, dashed against the same as a result whereof it turned and fell to its left. It was suggested to this witness in cross examination that the vehicle dashed against the guardstone to the left and fell on its side, a suggestion which was denied by the witness. He also deposes that his statement was not recorded by the police after the accident. Ghela Ghida also denied that the accident occurred because the driver of the vehicle suddenly applied the brakes and dashed against the guardstone. He was contradicted by his earlier police statement recorded by P.S.I. Shaikh wherein he appeared to have made such a statement. Gabha Shamji after initially stating that he did not recollect if the police had recorded his statement in this connection, denied to have stated that the accident occurred as the driver suddenly applied the brakes and the truck dashed against the guardstone and fell on its side. Jayanti Popat who pointed out the scene of accident to the police also denied to have stated to the police that because of the sudden application of brakes and dashing of the truck with the left guardstone, it fell on its side resulting in injuries to several passengers.