MANDI DAS Vs. RAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eighteen cases relate to an accident which occurred on 16-12-1986 in which a truck bearing registration No. ORC 1501 was involved. Two persons namely, Jagil Das and Panchu Sethi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased,) breathed their last at the spot of accident, and several other persons were injured. The accident occurred around 10 p.m. and F.I.R. was lodged at Pattapur Police Station on 17-12-1986. Some of the injured persons were sent to the M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital and others to Kankorda P.H.C. for treatment by the police, and G.R. Case No. 44 of 1986 was instituted. Post-mortem in respect of the two deceased was conducted at the M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital.

(2.) The legal representatives of the aforesaid two persons filed two claim petitions, while 21 cases were instituted by the injured persons, claiming compensation from Smt. Rama Devi, the owner of the vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the 'owner') and against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer',) for indemnification. The stand taken in the claim petitions was to the effect that the deceased and the injured persons were going to Kenduguda to work as daily labourers. They were being taken to Kenduguda to render service as labourers and the vehicle was taking them to the place of their engagement. The owner did not dispute the accident, but took a positive stand that she had not instructed and directed the authorised driver to carry any passenger. According to her Abhimanyu Nath who was driving the vehicle was not her employee. Prafulla Kumar Petro (OPW 2) was the driver and one Bainath Pradhan (OPW 1) was the helper of the vehicle. The truck was brought from Dadnala to Berhanpur for repairing and after the repair was over, it was given on hire basis. The driver Prafulla suddenly fell ill, and he engaged Abhimanyu to drive back the truck to Dadanala, without knowledge of the owner. If passengers were taken the same was done at the risk of the driver, but not of the owner. Certain medical reports (Exts. 2 to 11) were filed to prove that all the claimants had not sustained injuries as claimed and only a few had sustained injuries.

(3.) The insurer filed written statement denying the allegation made in the claim petition. It is the specific case of insurer that the passengers had forcibly entered into the truck and forced the driver to drive the vehicle, hence question of owner of the vehicle permitting the deceased and others to travel in the truck is a false plea.