LAWS(ORI)-1985-12-9

PURNA CHANDRA SENAPATI Vs. SARASWATI PANDA

Decided On December 17, 1985
Purna Chandra Senapati Appellant
V/S
Saraswati Panda Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment of the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation to respondents 1 and 2 who were petitioners before the Tribunal.

(2.) THE son of respondents 2 and 3 aged about 3 years was killed being dashed by a motor cycle bearing No. ORG 4469 belonging to the appellant on 2 -8 -1976 at 5.30 p.m. in front of the Veterinary Hospital gate on Berhampur -Chhatrapur road. Respondent No. 3, Lingaraj was the registered owner of the vehicle and respondent No. 4 was the insurer of the vehicle. On the date of accident while the deceased was standing near the culvert on the morrum portion of the road, a rickshaw fitted with microphone was proceeding from Berhampur side towards Chhatrapur. The appellant came at a high speed with the motor cycle without blowing any horn and suddenly swerved to its right and dashed against the deceased boy who was standing near the culvert on the right morrum portion of the road as a result of which the boy received multiple injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries at the Berhampur hospital. The parents of the deceased boy filed an application before the Tribunal claiming compensation alleging that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant, Purna Chandra Senapati. Respondent No. 3, Lingaraj was added as a party as he was the registered owner and the Insurance Company was also made a party to indemnify the insured from the damage payable by him to the claimant. The claim for compensation was to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Lingaraj in his written statement averred that by the date of occurrence the vehicle had already been sold to the appellant with effect from 2 -8 -76 and an application to the R.T.O. for transferring the vehicle to his name had also been made. Thereafter he had no responsibility as it is the appellant who was the owner of the vehicle.