HIRABHAI DHULABHAI Vs. DEVYANI JAYRAJSINH M CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, the driver of the offending vehicle and the Surat Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, Sthe Corporation ) have preferred the present Appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment and award dated 1st May, 1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surat (hereinafter referred to as, Sthe Tribunal ) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.328/1982. The respondents nos.1 to 4 are the claimants. The respondents nos.6 and 7 are the driver and the owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident. The respondents nos.5 and 8 are the insurance companies. The offending vehicle was insured by the respondent no.5 (hereinafter referred to as, Sthe insurer ).

(2.) The motor accident in question occurred on 8th June, 1982 on Nehru Bridge connecting Rander and Surat city. The accident involved three vehicles: two trucks bearing registration nos.GTT 4521 and GTB 5978 and a scooter. The victim Dr.Jayrajsinh Chauhan was riding the scooter. The truck bearing registration no.GTT 4521 (hereinafter referred to as, Sthe offending vehicle ) belonged to the Corporation. It so happened that on 8th June, 1982 at around 5:30 in the afternoon the victim Dr.Jayrajsinh Chauhan, a resident of Rander was going to his clinic in Surat on the scooter. While passing over the Nehru Bridge he was crushed between two trucks bearing nos.GTB 5978 going ahead of the scooter and the offending vehicle following the scooter. In the process Dr.Jayrajsinh Chauhan received fatal injuries and died before be was taken to a hospital. The claimants: the widow, a minor child and the parents of the deceased filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.328/1982 in the Tribunal for a compensation in the sum of Rs.10 lakhs. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award, held that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident in question. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.4,60,000=00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and the cost against the opponents nos.1,2 and 3, the appellants and the insurer. The liability of the insurer was restricted to Rs.50,000=00. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present Appeal and the claimants have filed the above Cross Objection.

(3.) Mr.Asthawadi has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident in question. He has submitted that the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the deceased Dr.Jayrajsinh Chauhan. He has submitted that at the relevant time all the three vehicles were passing over the Nehru Bridge towards Surat city. There was a heavy traffic on the bridge. The offending vehicle could not have been driven at an excessive speed or in rash and negligent manner. The accident in question occurred on the right side of the road i.e. all the three vehicles were driven on the left of the road. The Tribunal has erred in not believing the statement of the appellant no.1, the driver of the offending vehicle. He has submitted that the appellant no.1 had deposed before the Court that it was the deceased who was driving the scooter at an excessive speed. He was attempting to overtake the offending vehicle. However, on account of the oncoming traffic he swerved to his left and came between the offending vehicle and the truck bearing no.GTB 5978. As the truck no.GTB 5978 had suddenly applied the brakes, the deceased could not control his vehicle and dashed with the truck no.GTB 5978. He fell down the scooter and suffered fatal injuries. Mr.Asthawadi has submitted that thus it was the deceased who was negligent in driving the scooter. At the most some negligence can be attributed to the truck no.GTB 5978 but the offending vehicle was not the cause of the accident. He has submitted that the offending vehicle has wrongly been held responsible for the accident in question. In support of this submission, Mr.Asthawadi has relied upon the panchnama of the site of accident and the evidence of the appellant no.1, the driver of the offending vehicle.