LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-23

RATNARANI POLAI Vs. ATANU KUMAR BEHERA

Decided On September 26, 2008
Ratnarani Polai Appellant
V/S
Atanu Kumar Behera Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) filed by the claimant -appellants against the nil award dated 16.08.2004 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SD), Berhampur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal) in M.A.C. No.63/96(496/95).

(2.) THE case of the claimant -appellants before the learned Tribunal was that on 10.03.1995 the deceased Bijaya Kumar Polai was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.OAG 9555 (Subhasree) from Nalabanta to Berhampur. The bus took motion after its stoppage at Nalabanta, where the deceased boarded it. After moving a distance of 300 yards from the said stoppage, the bus while overtaking a truck loaded with sugarcane standing on its left side, swerved to further right in order to save a cyclist, who was coming from the opposite side. The bus hit the cyclist and then turned turtle as a result of which the deceased Bijaya Kumar Polai sustained injuries on his person in the said accident. According to the claimant -appellants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Initially, the deceased was treated at Aska Hospital and then taken to MKCG Medical College hospital, Berhampur. Subsequently, he underwent dialysis for his kidney injury and died in the said hospital on 27.1.1999.

(3.) THE owner of the offending vehicle -respondent No.1 in his written statement specifically denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. He stated that he was not liable for payment of any compensation to the claimants as the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed its written statement denying all the averments made in the claim application. Further case of the Insurance Company was that the offending vehicle was not duly insured with them at the time of accident.