SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. BINODINI RATH
LAWS(ORI)-1976-9-6
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on
September 13,1976
SUSHIL KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
BINODINI RATH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CLIVE INSURANCE COMPANY V. JOGINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]PRABHUDAYAL AGARWAL V. SARASWATI BAI [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO VS. KAMAL KAMINI DAS [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO VS. GURDEV KAUR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MANDA VISWANADHAM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1980-7-27] [REFERRED TO]UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. ZUMIBAI [LAWS(BOM)-1987-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL VS. SANATAN PRADHAN [LAWS(ORI)-1987-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
TATHAGATA SATAPATHY VS. RAGHUNATH MOHAPATRA [LAWS(ORI)-1988-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)ONE Gobinda Ch. Rath (32 years old at the time of his death), an Assistant in the Orissa Secretariat, was working on deputation under National Mineral development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'n. M. D. C. ') at kiriburu Iron Ore Project in the district of Keonjhar. He, on taking leave for a few days, was going from Kiriburu towards Barbil on 23-4-1966 in the jeep ERT 6477 belonging to the N. M. D. C. , the opposite party No. 1 in the court be lew. On the way said jeep collided with the truck ORJ 378 (belonging to the opposite party No. 2 in the court below) coming from the opposite direction. Due to the said accident Gobinda Chandra Rath was thrown out of the jeep, and he sustained several injuries on his person and died at the Tata Hospital at jamshedpur on 25-4-1966. His wife Binodini Rath, for herself and on behalf of her minor children filed an application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the loss sustained by her and her children due to the death of her husband.
(2.)THE Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of the drivers of both the jeep and the truck in equal proportion. On that finding and on assessing the compensation, to be paid to the claimants at rs. 55,000/-, the Tribunal has made opposite party No. 1 and opposite party no. 2 each liable to pay Rs. 27,500/-, and on that basis it has directed that opposite party No. 3, the insurer of the jeep will pay the entire liability of opposite party No. 1, and opposite party No. 4, the insurer of the truck, will pay rupees 20,000/- out of the liability fixed on opposite party No. 2, and the balance sum of Rs. 7,500/- will be paid by opposite party No. 2 himself.
(3.)OPPOSITE Party No. 2, the owner of the truck, has preferred Misc. Appeal No. 76/74 and opposite party No. 3, the insurer of the jeep, has preferred Misc. Appeal No. 78/74. As both these appeals arise out of the same decision of the court below, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this judgment.
(2.)THE Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of the drivers of both the jeep and the truck in equal proportion. On that finding and on assessing the compensation, to be paid to the claimants at rs. 55,000/-, the Tribunal has made opposite party No. 1 and opposite party no. 2 each liable to pay Rs. 27,500/-, and on that basis it has directed that opposite party No. 3, the insurer of the jeep will pay the entire liability of opposite party No. 1, and opposite party No. 4, the insurer of the truck, will pay rupees 20,000/- out of the liability fixed on opposite party No. 2, and the balance sum of Rs. 7,500/- will be paid by opposite party No. 2 himself.
(3.)OPPOSITE Party No. 2, the owner of the truck, has preferred Misc. Appeal No. 76/74 and opposite party No. 3, the insurer of the jeep, has preferred Misc. Appeal No. 78/74. As both these appeals arise out of the same decision of the court below, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this judgment.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.