ORISSA STATE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CORPORATIONCUTTACK Vs. DHUMALI BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an accident by truck ORU 7741 belonging to the appellant Corporation, three persons namely. Bansidhar Mohanty, Kulamoni Das and Sunakar Mallick died and Nachha Swain was injured. This happened at the time of unloading in the jetty No. 1 of the Paradip Port on 26-4-1975 at about 3 A.M. M. A. No. 93/79 relates to the claim made by the widow and other claimants of Bansidhar. M. A. No. 90/79 relates to the claim made by the widow and other claimants of Kulamoni, M. A. 88/79 relates to the claim made by the widow and other claimants of Sunakar Mallick, The injured Nachha Swain is the claimant in M. A. 94 of 1979.

(2.) Their case is that the vehicle was being driven by one S. Appa Rao, an employee of the appellant After this truck was unloaded, the coolies, namely, three deceased persons and the injured along with others, were engaged in filling up the unloaded cromite ore into the baskets behind the truck for the purpose of loading the said ore into waiting barges. The driver of the truck reversed the vehicle without blowing any horn and ran over them which resulted in the death of the aforesaid three persons and injured Nachha Swain. The claimants of late Bansidhar have claimed Rupees 40,000/-, of Kulamoni have claimed Rs. 40,000/-, and of Sunakar Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. The injured Nachha Swain has claimed Rs. 30,000/- as compensation including medical expenses. Bansidhar w,as aged 30 years and was earning Rs. 300/- per month, Kulamoni was aged 30 years and was earning Rupees 300/- per month, Sunakar was aged 35 years and was earning Rs. 300/- per month and Nachha Swain was aged 35 years and he was earning Rs. 300/- per month. The appellant in the common written-statement in all these four cases which have been heard analogously denied that S. Appa Rao was driving the vehicle. It is admitted that S. Appa Rao is only a helper of the truck. He was not authorised to drive this vehicle. One Khirod Kumar Sahu was the driver of the vehicle. At the relevant time Khirod Kumar Sahu was taking tea in a nearby hotel who left the ignition key on the switch board of the vehicle and at that time S. Appa Rao was sleeping inside the vehicle. Under these circumstances the accident took place. Appellant is not aware as to how the accident took place. Therefore, the appellant is not liable. The insurer who is Opp. Party No. 2 in the common written statement denied the averments made in the petitions. It contended that it not liable to compensate the appellant as the vehicle was driven by S. Appa Rao who had no driving licence. Further the accident took place near Jetty No. 1 which is not a public place. For the aforesaid reasons, it is contended that Opp. Party No. 2 is not liable to indemnify Opp. Party No. 1.

(3.) The tribunal has held that S. Appa Rao was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. He was not authorized to drive this vehicle. He was not holding a licence as driver at the time of the alleged accident. The accident took place in a private area. The real driver Khirod Kumar Sahu was negligent in his duties. Therefore, the insurer is not liable and the owner is liable.