(1.) LATE Padmacharan Patnaik, a literate constable, was undergoing A. S. I. training ib the Police Training College at Angul On 29-11-59 he with other trainees and staff proceeded to Dhenkanal Jail on duty in a police van (ORD 426) belonging to the State Government. The van was being driven by driver Sayad Yakub AM, who was an employee of the State (defendant ). On its way the van dashed against a tree on the road side. Padmacharan sustained injuries and died. Plaintiff is the widow of late Padmacharan. She claimed damages of Rs. 20,000/- on account of the loss caused by the death of her husband as a result of the accident occasioned by rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the defendant. At the time of his death, late Padmacharan was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 60/ -. He was 27 years old, was maintaining a very good health and was normally expected to live upto the 60th year with con-sequential promotions due in the police service. The facts leading to the death of Padmacharan are not denied. Defence case is that the death was the result of a pure accident over which the driver had no control and the State was not vicariously liable for the injury caused due to the driver's rash and negligent act, if any. The quantum of damages was also challenged.
(2.) THE learned trial Court held that Padmacharan died due to the accident which was the outcome of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and that the State was vicariously liable for the act of the driver in course of Ms employment. On the further finding that the plaintiff was the widow of late padmacharan the learned Judge decreed the suit for Rs. 8400/- assessing the damages at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month for a period of 28 years. Plaintiff has filed the appeal for the balance of the claim disallowed by the learned subordinate Judge. Defendant has filed cross-objection against the decree awarding Rs. 8400 as damages.
(3.) THE following questions arise for consideration in this appeal-