BRAHMANANDA SAHU Vs. HALLA KHANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a petition for claim under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident in question took place on 28-5-1975 at 9 A. M. near village Dahalbag on the National High Way No. V. The deceased who was a boy of nine years was proceeding on the road leading towards Cut-tack, At that time the truck bearing Registration No. ORU 2441 came at breakneck speed without blowing horn and dashed against the boy from behind resulting in instantaneous death. The claimants are the parents of the deceased boy. They have claimed Rs. 6,000.00, consolidated, as compensation. The opposite parties -- respondents filed their respective written statements denying the allegations made in the claim petition and their stand is that the case is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. They further allege that the deceased boy while walking on the extreme left of the road suddenly came to the black top portion of the road in front of the vehicle, and by then it was impossible on the part of the driver to stop the vehicle and prevent the impact. They contend that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident and, as such, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

(2.) The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck as evident from the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 and there was absolutely no evidence to show that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased boy. The vehicle was driven at a terrific speed without, blowing horn and dashed against the deceased boy from behind who was walking on the extreme left side of the road. The road was quite free at the relevant time, and the driver did not stop the vehicle after the accident and fled away with the vehicle. The deceased boy succumbed to the accident at the spot.

(3.) After going through the evidence, I am in agreement with the findings of the trial Court and there is no material to discard the testimony of P. Ws. 2 and 3. Non-examination of the driver without any possible reason also goes against the opposite parties. I am in agreement with the Tribunal that this is a fit case for applying the principles of res ipsa loquitur and I hold that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and there was no contributory negligence on the cart of the deceased boy.