SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT Vs. SUSILA KUMARI PADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Orissa has filed the aforesaid two appeals challenging the common judgment dated 31.3.1992 passed by the 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (S.D.), Berhampur, in M.A.C. No. 327 of 1988 (339 of 1987) and No. 83 of 1988 (196 of 1987) respectively awarding compensation of Rs. 2,60,000 for the death of deceased Prakash Chandra Padhi and Rs. 30,000 in favour of the injured, Giridhari Palai and saddling the liability of payment of the aforesaid compensation on the present appellant.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present appeals may be stated thus: On 24.5.1987 the deceased Prakash Chandra Padhi, while posted as Officer-in-charge of Kodala Police Station, Orissa, requisitioned a private vehicle, namely, a mini truck, bearing registration No. OSG 1974 belonging to one Kailash Chandra Nayak for deployment on official duty as no Government vehicle was then available in the police station. The deceased along with his staff proceeded in the said vehicle with its driver to Polosara on official duty and on the way near Budhamba on Aska-Khallikote main road at about 11 p.m., the vehicle met with an accident when it dashed against a culvert and capsized. As a result of such accident, while the Officer-in-charge died at the spot, other occupants of the vehicle sustained multiple bodily injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased, i.e., the widow, a minor son and a daughter (respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in M.A. No. 381 of 1992) and the injured persons filed separate claim cases being M.A.C. Nos. 327 of 1988 (339 of 1987), 232 of 1987 (136 of 1987), 231 of 1988 (140 of 1987), 78 of 1988 (139 of 1987), 83 of 1988 (196 of 1987), 138 of 1988 (358 of 1987), 77 of 1988 (138 of 1987), 93 of 1988 (363 of 1987) and 105 of 1988 (137 of 1987). By a common judgment dated 16.8.1989, the Tribunal disposed of the aforesaid cases by holding that the death of the deceased and injuries to the injured persons were caused in the accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in the different cases. The Tribunal also held that as the vehicle had been requisitioned by the Officer-in-charge of the police station for official purpose, the State of Orissa was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Against the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the State of Orissa preferred appeals being M.A. Nos. 527 and 535 of 1989 on the ground that the vehicle being insured with the insurer, the State Government could not be saddled with the liability of payment of compensation as there was nothing in the judgment to show that the vehicle was requisitioned by the person having the authority. Considering the submission of the State, this court disposed of the aforesaid appeals and remanded the matters to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing strictly on the question whether the Officer-in-charge had any authority to requisition the vehicle. The court, however, confirmed the determination of quantum of just compensation and the finding regarding negligent driving by the driver employed by the owner of the vehicle. After remand, the Tribunal heard all the cases together and disposed of the same by common judgment dated 31.3.1992 holding that State Government was liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the respective claimants. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Claims Tribunal, the State Government preferred separate appeals being M.A. Nos. 379 to 387 of 1992. Except the present two appeals, i.e., M.A. Nos. 381 and 387 of 1992, the other appeals have been either withdrawn or dismissed, as would appear from the memo filed by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

(3.) In the present appeals, the State has challenged the awards mainly on the ground that admittedly the driver employed by the owner of the vehicle was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and, according to Motor Vehicles Act, tortious liability is to be saddled with the owner and since the vehicle in question met with the accident due to negligence of the driver, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation and the police raiding party being the gratuitous passengers are liable to get the compensation from the owner. According to the counsel for the State, the owner is liable to be indemnified by the insurer in terms of the policy of insurance. In this regard my attention is drawn to the judgment of the Tribunal wherein it was found that respondent No. 3, the present appellant, had admitted that the offending vehicle was requisitioned by the Government for official duty. Basing upon the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal ultimately held that it is the appellant, who was liable to pay the compensation and not the owner of the vehicle. It is to be noted here that after the remand by this court, the State Government did not adduce any further evidence before the Tribunal and relied upon the evidence already adduced during the initial stage of the proceeding. It is a fact that the requisition of a vehicle by the Government is a compulsory one and no owner can raise any objection in that regard and after a vehicle is requisitioned, the owner will have no control over the vehicle while the same remains in the possession of the Government.