NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RATNABALA MAHAPATRA
LAWS(ORI)-1988-9-23
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on September 06,1988

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
Ratnabala Mahapatra Respondents




JUDGEMENT

G.B. Patnaik, J. - (1.)THESE two appeals under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act are directed against the award of the Tribunal and the Appellant is the insurer of the vehicle ORR 2661. On account of the death of the deceased, who was travelling on the very vehicle ORR 2661, two claim cases were filed, one by the widow of the deceased which was registered as Misc. Case No. 90 of 1980 and is subject -matter of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 30 of 1984 and the other by the mother of the deceased which was registered as Misc. Case No. 91 of 1980 and is the subject -matter of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31 of 1984. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 72,000/ - in favour of the widow and Rs. 12,000/ - in favour of the mother of the deceased.
(2.)THE case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was proceeding to Delhi and was travelling on the vehicle ORR 2661 on a hire basis, on 20.6.1980. It was raining heavily. Another vehicle bearing registration number ORR 257 had been parked on the road between Gosala and Bhati Road -Crossing near Bargarh. The driver of the vehicle ORR 2661 which was being driven at a high speed could not see the vehicle in front which had been parked on account of heavy rains and could not apply the brakes in time as a result of which the same dashed against the parked vehicle and on the parked vehicle certain logs had been kept which were pushed inside the cabin of the truck on which the deceased was moving and the deceased died at the spot.
The owner of the truck ORR 2661 denied the allegation that the deceased was moving on the truck as a passenger for hire and so far as the accident in question was concerned, it was pleaded that it was raining at the time and it had become dark and therefore, the visibility was very poor and even though the driver of the vehicle was driving at a very low speed, but as the timbers on truck No. ORR 257 had protruded outside, the same dashed against the front portion of the vehicle ORR 2661. It was also pleaded that the parked vehicle had no light and no sign to indicate that the same had been parked. The present Appellant who was the insurer of the vehicle ORR 2661 admitted that the vehicle ORR 2661 had been insured with it, but denied the allegation made in the claim petitions. So far as the vehicle ORR 257 is concerned, though the owner was impleaded as a party, yet as the claimants could not know the name of the insurer of the said vehicle, the said insurer had not been made a party.

(3.)THE Tribunal on consideration of the materials before him came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck ORR 2661 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and was responsible for causing the accident and therefore, the owner and the insurer of the said vehicle would be liable to pay the compensation in question. On the question of quantum of compensation after taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the monthly salary he was receiving and all other relevant factors, the Tribunal has fixed the compensation for the widow at Rs. 72,000/ - and for the mother at Rs. 12,000/ - .


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.