SINDHU MOHANTY Vs. GOURKRUSHNA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arjuna Mohanty whose parents are appellants before us was returning on cycle from Puri Town to Chandanpur at about 9 O'clock in the morning on 2311- 1969 along with one Satrughna Sahu (P. W. 2). Each of them was riding a cycle and while they were near about Bira Harekrushnapur, from the opposite direction came a bus bearing registration number ORP 365 which dashed against the cycle of the deceased Arjuna. As a result of this collision Arjuna fell down and over him fell his cycle. The bus did not stop. With multiple injuries on his body the victim was removed to the hospital at Puri where he succumbed to his injuries a couple of hours after the incident. A claim was laid for compensation under the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 by the parents impleading the owner of the bus and the insurer of the vehicle and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was claimed.

(2.) The deceased was said to be a person of 22 years of age and was employed under one Upendra Mohapatra on a monthly salary of Rs. 150/-. The father of the deceased claimed to be a person aged 63 while the mother was just above 50. They alleged that the deceased was moving on the appropriate side of the road. At the place where the collision took place, the road was wide; on the two flanks the metalled portion of the road was about seven feet each and the black top of the road at that place was quite wide. While the victim was proceeding at a slow speed the bus was driven rashly and negligently and the driver did not take adequate precaution. The driver did not take the vehicle to his left and came too much on the right side of the road as a result whereof the collision took place,

(3.) Both the owner of the vehicle as also the insurer filed two separate written statements. According to the owner, the victim was on the wrong side of the road along with his friend and both the cyclists wanted to go to the left side of the road when they saw the bus approaching. P. W. 2, the friend of the deceased, who was going behind could not control the cycle and, therefore, the front wheel of his cycle dashed against the cycle and fell down. In his turn the deceased could not control his own cycle and fell down. The bus was being driven with all care and at a slow speed and, therefore, the owner of the bus cannot be made liable for any compensation. The insurer took the stand that the cycle was being driven rashly and without ringing any bell or looking towards vehicles moving on the road. The bus was coming from the opposite direction on its appropriate side and was being driven at a slow speed and horn was being blown. The deceased came negligently and dashed against the vehicle and sustained injuries due to his contributory negligence. Therefore, the insurer had no liability.