BANAWARILAL AGARWALLA Vs. JEEVAN KUMAR BADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by apportionment of the compensation in MACT Misc. Case No. 169 of 1983 of the Court of Third MACT, Puri, the claimants have filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 17.3.1993.

(2.) THE parents of the deceased Pabanlal Agrawal filed the said MACT Misc. Case for compensation on the ground that on 15.8.1981 the mini -truck bearing registration No. ORX -2317 being rash and negligently driven caused the accident as a result of which the deceased boy standing by the side of the road suffered instantaneous death. Monthly income of the said deceased was stated as Rs. 1500/ - per month and a claim was made for compensation of Rs. 2,65,000/ -. Opposite Party No. 1/respondent No. 1 is the owner of that mini -truck and opposite party No.2/respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the mini -truck. In their separate written statements the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle denied to the allegation of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the mini -truck and accordingly denied to their liability to make payment of compensation. It was stated in such written statements that when the mini -truck was moving on the road in slow speed, the deceased driving the scooter made attempt to overtake the mini -truck from the wrong side i.e., the left side of the road and met with the accident by dashing against the rear portion of the Dala of the mini -truck and that is why he suffered the injuries and died at the spot.

(3.) CLAIMANTS adduced evidence of four witnesses including the claimant No. 1/appellant No. 1 being examined as P.W. No. 1. Appellants also relied on documents marked Exts. 1 to 8. Out of those Exts. 1 to 4 are respectively certified copies of seizure -list, charge -sheet, MV! Report and Zimanama. Those documents were available in the G.R. Case No. 1784 of 1981 registered against the driver for rash and negligent driving. Exts. 5 to 8 are documents in support of the deceased's engagement in business and earning therefrom. Opposite Party No. 1 i.e., the owner of the truck examined two witnesses as O.P.Ws. 1 and 2. Out of them the driver of the offending truck was O.P.W. No. 2 and the other witness was examined as an eye witness to the occurrence. The opposite party No. 1 also relied on documents marked Exts. A to E. Out of that Ext. E is the certified copy of statement of P.W. No. 1 which he made to police as a witness in the above noted G.R. Case No. 1784 of 1981.