ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL Vs. RAMANATH MOHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eight miscellaneous appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in eight claim petitions tried analogously. Common questions of fact and law arise in all these miscellaneous appeals and so they were heard analogously. This common judgment will govern all of them.

(2.) THE case of the claimants relevant for disposal of the miscellaneous appeals are stated in a nutshell. The claimants and some others belonging to two families were returning to their village, Malihata, in a bullock cart after witnessing the sivaratri mela at village, Deosul, in the evening of February 21, 1974, on Amarda -Baripada Road. At about 7.30 p. m. near village, Sasa, they noticed the headlights of a motor vehicle coming from behind. The occupants of the bullock cart asked the cartman to get down and stop it so as to control the bullocks till the passing of the motor vehicle. The cartman did so. The motor vehicle came with a great speed without blowing the horn and dashed against the bullock cart from the rear. As a result of the impact, the bullock cart with its occupants was pushed to a great distance resulting in its complete damage, instantaneous death of five occupants and severe injury, such as fractures and disfigurement of others. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. ORM 1063 of which the registered owner was the respondent, Padmalochan. The motor vehicle had been given on hire to the respondents, Neelratan and Jyotiprakash, and at the time of accident it was being driven by Laxmidhar Bindhani, driver of the respondents, Neelratan and Jyotiprakash, who were in possession and management of the motor vehicle and were plying the same on their route. The appellant -insurance company had insured the motor vehicle against third party risk. The claimants claimed different amounts of compensation.

(3.) THE respondents, Neelratan and Jyotiprakash, filed separate written statements and took identical defences with the addition that the respondent, Jyotiprakash, denied that Laxmidhar Bindhani was employed by him.