Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhanuchandra Manilal Shah, filed a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in MACP No.648 of 2012. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus. The accident occurred on 30.09.2010 at about 7:00 p.m. at the Ambaji Platform, Geet Mandir S.T. Bus Stand, Idar–Himmatnagar. The claimant was standing on the platform waiting for a bus when the S.T. Bus bearing Registration No. GJ-18-Y-3992, driven by opponent No.1 Gagansinh Tarasinh Gurkha, came at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. While taking a semi-circular turn, the rear portion of the bus hit the claimant, causing him to fall, and the rear tyre ran over his left leg, resulting in serious injuries. The claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the petition, concluding that the driver was not negligent. The High Court, upon hearing the appellant's advocate and perusing the record, found that the Tribunal had drawn unwarranted inferences from the evidence. The court noted that the claimant had specifically stated the manner of accident in the claim petition, and the written statement at Exhibit 13 and observations in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment did not support the Tribunal's conclusion. The court held that the Tribunal's finding was contrary to settled principles of law and the evidence on record. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and award, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, directing the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Negligence - Burden of Proof - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimant failed to prove negligence of the bus driver. The High Court found that the Tribunal drew unwarranted inferences from evidence and ignored the claimant's specific averments that the bus was driven at excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and that the rear portion of the bus hit the claimant while taking a semi-circular turn. Held that the Tribunal's conclusion was contrary to settled principles of law and the evidence on record (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claimant failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in MACP No.648 of 2012 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Law Points
- Negligence
- burden of proof
- motor accident claim
- rash and negligent driving
- contributory negligence
