LAWS(ORI)-1977-10-1

ARCHANA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On October 11, 1977
ARCHANA NAYAK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the claimants under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of compensation given by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal asking for enhancement of the quantum of compensation.

(2.) The deceased Surendra Kumar Nayak was a Class-II Officer of the Orissa Administrative Service and was stationed at Bhubaneswar in 1969. In the afternoon of 12-6-1969, the deceased was returning from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar in a Station Wagon Bearing number O.R.C. 3442 belonging to the State of Orissa. Along with the deceased, one Sri J. B. Singh working then as Joint Director of Industries and certain other persons were travelling in the Station Wagon. Near about the junction on the National Highway No. V with a road leading to New Capital area of Bhubaneswar in the close proximity of Vani Vihar, the Station Wagon met with a head-on collision with a truck bearing registration number O.R.U. 1053 coming (from Khandagiri side on the National Highway. As a result of this collision, three persons met with their death - the deceased Surendra, the mother-in-law of Sri J. B. Singh as also the driver of the Station Wagon. Sri Singh received several injuries but survived. The widow of Sri Nayak and a minor daughter laid claim for compensation alleging that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent and, therefore, the owners of both the vehicles were jointly and severally liable to make good the amount of compensation.

(3.) The State of Orissa - owner of the Station Wagon - contended that the driver of the Station Wagon was neither rash nor negligent and the accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. The owner of the truck as also its insurer took the stand that the accident was due to the sole negligence and rashness of the driver of the Station Wagon and there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver. All the contestants maintained that the quantum of compensation claimed was imaginary and excessive.