BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Vs. BHIKARI BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the owner of a jeep bearing registration No. OSC 5336.

(2.) ON 2 -6 -1984, a jeep of State of Orissa, was being driven on the National High Way No. 5, when the claimant was coming in a motor cycle as a pillion rider from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar. There was collision resulting injuries of fractures of left leg of the claimant. He has to undergo treatment and even on the date of taking evidence in the claim case before the Tribunal the Doctor who was treating the claimant certified that he had not been, fully crued. In that background, the Tribunal has assessed the just compensation to be Rs. 20,000/ - as claimed. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle.

(3.) THE driver of the jeep has not been examined in this case. The Block Development Officer who was the occupant of the vehicle has been examined who stated that the vehicle was to come to Cuttack and on account of the fact that a Bus was coming from Cuttack side to proceed to Bhubaneswar the jeep was on its right side to come to the left after the bus passed at that time the motor cycle came in speed and dashed against the left bumper of the jeep. The driver of the vehicle if examined could have given a clear picture but he has been withheld without any explanation for his non -examination. So an adverse inference can be drawn and it can safely be concluded that on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep, the accident took place. Mr. Sahu submitted that equally adverse inference for non -examination of the driver of the motor cycle is to be drawn once there is an accident and negligence is attributed to the driver. If the Block Development Officer could not have been examined, this would have been a valid consideration where contributory negligence is claimed. If the accident would have been denied, the question might have been different. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, on the evidence on record and for non -examination of the driver of the jeep I confirm the finding of the Tribunal that the jeep was being driven negligently, as a result of which, the injury was sustained by the claimant.