S. Acharya, J. - (1.)THE Appellant filed a petition under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') claiming compensation on account of the injury sustained by her in a motor accident which caused her abortion after 7 days thereof.
(2.)ACCORDING to the Appellant, she on 19.2.73 was traveling in the "bus ORP 2763 from Satasankha towards Pipli on the Puri - Cuttack road. Another bus ORU 5556 was going ahead of the bus in which the Appellant was traveling. The bus ORU 5556 stopped near village Badhi without leaving any space for the second bus (ORP 2763) to go on its own way passing the first bus. It is also alleged that the second bus ORP 2763 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it was not maintaining a safe distance from the first bus and so the second bus collided against the first on its back side as soon as it stopped suddenly on the road at the above mentioned place. The claimant, at the time, was carrying for about 6 to 7 months, and because of the impact due to the aforesaid collision the claimant was thrown out of her seat and she dashed against the seat in front of her and became unconscious at the spot. She was thereafter taken to the Mangalpur Primary Health Centre nearby, and after two days' stay in the said Health Centre she was taken to her village where she was treated by doctors available at near about places. As her condition, instead of improving, deteriorated, she was taken to the Puri Government Hospital on 25.2.73 where she was admitted on that day as an indoor patient. While she was in that Hospital, she on 26.2.73 aborted and gave birth to a dead child. After her abortion she was kept in the Hospital till 1.3.73.
Opposite party No. 1, Respondent No. 1 herein is the owner of the bus ORP 2763. Opposite party No. 2, Respondent No. 2 herein, is the owner of the bus ORU 5556. Opposite party No. 3, Respondent No. 3 herein, was impleaded as the insurer of bus ORP 2763, and opposite party No. 4, Respondent no, 4 herein, admittedly is the insurer of the bus ORU 5556.

(3.)THE opposite parties admitted that there was some such accident between the two buses, but they contested the claim put forward by the claimant stating inter alia that the buses were not being driven in any rash and negligent manner ; the drivers of the buses did not commit any rash and negligent act ; and the claimant did not sustain any injury of any kind due to the said accident.
Opposite party No. 3 in its written statement, apart from contesting the claims on other grounds, further alleged that the bus ORP 2763 had not been insured by this Insurance Company at the relevant time and called upon the owner of the said bus, opposite party No. 1, to produce the policy.