STATE OF ORISSA Vs. ANONGA KUMAR NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Addl.Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in M.S. No.178 of 1977.

(2.) APPELLANT -plaintiff filed a suit claiming compensation of Rs.19,546/ - from the defendant -respondent No.1 with the pleading that the truck bearing registration No. ORU 4473 belonging to the defendant -respondent No.1 and driven by defendant -respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner met with an accident on the Mahanadi bridge causing damage to the left side foot -path of the girder parapet, cross -girders, rails, slabs etc. It was pleaded that for the repair of the above noted damages to the bridge, a sum of Rs.21,697.66 paise was spent, but after completion of the repair work, the wooden materials used for the repair were sold in public auction and a sum of Rs.2151/ - was realized leaving a balance of Rs.19,546.66 paise. The defendants in their written statement denied the claim and the pleading of the plaintiff -appellant in toto. The defendant -respondent No.1 not only denied the ownership of the truck in question, but also denied to have engaged defendant No.2 as driver of the truck. The fact of accident and damage to the bridge was also denied. In addition to such denial, it was further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable as the Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Cuttack is not the proper person to represent the State and that the claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident is not maintainable in the Civil Court. Considering the pleadings of the parties, learned Sub -ordinate Judge framed as many as 12 issues and accepted the evidence of the parties. The plaintiff examined the Sub -Assistant Engineer as the sole witness and produced some documents to prove the expenditure with regard to the repair of the bridge. No evidence oral or documentary was adduced from the side of the defendants. Considering the pleadings and evidence on record, learned Sub -ordinate Judge came to the conclusion that there was damage to the Mahanadi bridge because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck bearing No.ORU -4473 and that the plaintiff had to spend Rs.21,697.66 paise for repair of the damaged portion of the bridge. The Court also accepted that the wooden materials were sold for Rs.2151/ - and that the suit is maintainable in the Civil Court, but disallowed the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the defendant No.1 was the owner of the truck or defendant No.2 caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving.

(3.) THE evidence of P.W.1 shows that he visited the spot, made a spot enquiry and during his spot visit he found the foot -path, railing, girder parapet of the bridge broken and the truck bearing Registration No.ORU -4473 lying on the river bed in broken condition. This part of his evidence has not been disputed or rebutted. P.W.1 also stated that he submitted a report and after obtaining orders necessary repairs to the bridge were effected incurring an expenditure of Rs.21,697.66 paise. To support this contention P.W.1 proved receipts marked as Exts.1/a to 2/z and vouchers as Exts.2 to 2/z and 2/a to 2/a -34, Exts.3 to 3/v Payment Register and Ext.5 Register of accounts containing relevant entries Ext.5/a to 5/f. These documents show the amount of materials used, and connected expenditure made. So, it is clearly established from the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents that a portion of the Mahanadi bridge was damaged due to the accident involving truck bearing No.ORU -4473 and for repair of the damaged portion an expenditure of Rs.21,697.66 paise was incurred.