GOURANGA KATUAL Vs. GOVINDA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eight appeals are interlinked and are disposed of by this common judgment. Eight applications were filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the 'Act') claiming compensation on various scores in respect of an accident which occurred on 27-11-1985 resulting in deaths of Surendra Kumar Jena, Kamala Mohapatra and Kalika Dei. Their legal representatives claimed compensation, while five others who sustained injuries in the accident also claimed compensation.

(2.) Common case of all the claimants sans unnecessary details is as follows:- On 27-11-1985, the deceased persons, injured persons and some others were travelling in a vehicle (Trekker) bearing registration No. WNF 1148, owned by Gourang Katual (hereinafter referred to as the 'owner'). Vehicle in question was subject-matter of insurance with the National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer'). All of them were travelling from Talamundali to Puri. The driver of the vehicle was driving the same at a high speed, and near Gopalpur Control check gate on the National Highway No. 5, it dashed against a truck bearing registration No. ATK 9655 belonging to Sudark Mary (herinafter referred to as the 'owner of the truck') which had been parked on the left side of the road, and as a result of the accident the trekker over turned on the left side of the road and three of the occupants named above breathed their last while others suffered serious injuries. During adjudication by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (in short, the 'Tribunal'), the owner of the truck did not appear but the owner of the trekker filed his written statement. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer of the truck') filed written statement in all cases and contested the claims.

(3.) Five issues were framed by the Tribunal. The main issues related to cause of death of deceased persons, and injuries to the injured, and whether they were on account of rash and negligent driving of the trekker and truck, and whether Insurance Companies were liable to pay compensation. On evaluation of evidence, Tribunal came to hold that the trekker had dashed against the truck. The driver of the trekker was driving in a rash and negligent manner, and death and injuries resulted from the accident. So far as individual claims are concerned, various amounts were awarded to the claimants. It was observed that insurers were not liable and the owner of the trekker was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The basis of such conclusion was that claimants have not established that they were gratuitous passengers, and on the contrary it was to be presumed that the vehicle was being plied for hire or reward, though registered as a private vehicle and insured as a private car. Tribunal observed that it was hard to believe that even fuel charge was not paid by the occupants to the owner of the vehicle for use of the same. Various amounts were awarded to the claimants.