S.Acharya, J. - (1.)The General Manager of the Orissa Road Transport Company Ltd., which owns the bus, ORG 2743, one of the vehicles involved in the accident in question, has preferred this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 23/69. The claim petition was filed by the father-in-law of the deceased (P. W. 10) on behalf of the widow and children of the deceased who are respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal. The accident in question took place on 18-10-1969 at about 11.00 a.m. near the Kuakhi bridge on the Cuttack- Bubaneswar road. The case put forward on behalf of the claimants is that on 18-10-1969 the deceased was returning in his car ORC 7733 from Berhampur to Cuttack. Near about the Kuakhai bridge the deceased's car was passing by the side of the bus ORG 2743 belonging to the appellant and after the car overtook the bus, the bus suddenly swerved to its right and dashed against the car. At that time a loaded truck, bearing No. APS 929 owned by respondent No. 6, was coming from the opposite direction. As the said bus dashed against the car of the deceased from behind, the car collided against the truck coming from the opposite direction and in the process the car got sandwiched between the bus and the truck and was crushed to pieces as a result of which the deceased was killed instantaneously at the spot. According to the claimants the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the above mentioned bus. The deceased at the time of 'his death was Joint Director of Soil Conservation, Orissa and was 45 years 9 months of age. He was then getting a salary of Rs. 1,500/- including D. A. His life expectancy according to the claimants was 65 years. On different scores the claimants made a claim for Rs. 1,56,000/-.
(2.)The case of the appellant (Opposite party No. 1 in the Court below) is that the driver of the bus ORG 2743 was driving the vehicle at a reasonable low speed when the accident took place. The car ORC 7733 in which the deceassed was travelling overtook the bus without blowing the horn or waiting for the signal from the bus driver to overtake the bus. There was not enough space on the right side of the bus for the car to overtake the bus and just at the time when the car was trying to overtake the bus at that place a truck was coming from the opposite direction, the car dashed against the bus and then it dashed against the oncoming truck and in the process it was sandwiched between the two heavy vehicles. When the driver of the bus found that the car was trying to overtake the bus within a very small space, he (the driver of the bus) suddenly steered the bus towards its left and applied its brakes as a result of which the bus toppled down on its left side at the place of the accident. It was also urged by the appellant that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car, and the bus driver was in no way responsible for the said accident. The appellant further contends that the application for compensation was not maintainable in law, and that in any view of the matter the claim for compensation is highly exaggerated. By an additional written statement filed by the appellant statements regarding some properties owned by the deceased and his income from different sources was furnished. In that written statement it is further stated that the claimants received certain amounts from different sources on account of the death of the deceased by accident.
(3.)The owner of the truck, opposite party No. 2 in the Court below and respondent No. 6 herein, did not file any written statement. The insurer of the truck i. e. opposite party No. 3 in the Court below and respondent No. 7 in this appeal, filed his written statement stating, inter alia, that at the place of the accident the truck APS 929 was parked on its extreme left side of the road even beyond the tarred portion, and the car ORC 7733 came at a very high speed and tried to overtake the bus ORG 2743 at the place where the accident took place. As the bus and the car were both being driven at a very high speed and the car was trying to overtake the bus those two vehicles dashed against each other as a result of which the car was hurled against the front portion of the truck and the accident took place. According to this respondent the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car and the bus, and the truck was in no way responsible for the said accident, and so neither the owner nor the insurer of the truck can be held liable to pay any compensation in this case.