JAGANNATH SINHA AND ORS. Vs. KHIRODINI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid appeals arise out of seven claim petitions under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act disposed of the 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack and relate to one accident. In all the claim petitions the State of Orissa was opposite party No. 1, the owner of the truck bearing No. OPJ 2533 which was one of the vehicles involved in the accident was opposite party No. 3. The facts relating to the accident were common in all the claim petitions although the claimants and their claims in the petitions were different. The defence of each of the three opposite parties was practically the same in all the cases. The seven claim petitions having been allowed by the Tribunal by a common judgment opposite party No. 2 has preferred M.A. Nos. 109 to 115 of 1974 and opposite party No. 1 has preferred M.A. Nos. 130 to 136 of 1974. As all the appeals involve common questions of law and fact, with consent of the learned Counsel for both parties in each of the appeals they have been heard together and this judgment will govern all of them. In this judgment the Appellant in M.A. Nos. 109 to 115 of 1974 will be described as opposite party No. 2, the Appellant in M.A. Nos. 130 to 136 of 1974 as opposite party No. 1, the insurer in all the appeals as opposite party No. 3 and the claimant -Respondents as claimants.

(2.) THE case of the claimants in all the seven claim cases in the court below may be stated thus: Several police officials were being taken on State duty in a police vehicle bearing No. ORG 1327 belonging to opposite party No. 1 for attending firing camp. That police vehicle, while carrying the police officials, was being driven by one Gopal Chandra Sahu in a terrific speed most rashly and negligently without blowing horn on the road. Another truck bearing No. ORJ 2533 belonging to opposite party No. 2 was coming from the opposite direction on the very same road being driven negligently and rashly in a very high speed without blowing horn. Due to rash and negligent driving of the two vehicles there was head on collision between the two on the road which was empty at the place of accident. As a result of collision, the vehicle carrying police officials was pushed inside the road -side Nayanjori. Out of the police officials occupants in the police vehicle, 3 Havildars, 3 constables and 1 police cook died as a result of the accident.

(3.) THE case of opposite party No. 2 in the court below was thus: The driver of the truck was driving it without the knowledge and consent of opposite party No. 2, the owner, and the driver was solely responsible for the accident. Opposite party No. 2 was not aware as to how his truck was hired for carrying cement. According to opposite party No. 2, his driver was driving the truck with due caution and care, and so, he was not at fault. The driver of the police vehicle was negligent and the accident took place due to his rashness and negligence. If compensation is found to be payable to the claimants both by the owner of the truck and the owner of the police vehicle, since the truck was insured with opposite party No. 3, opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 will only be liable to pay compensation and not opposite party No. 2.