STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR SATPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an accident claims case disposed of by, the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.

(2.) THE petitioner was involved in an accident on 20 -6 -1980 when he was coming from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack in his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. ORC -3231 which was hit by a Motor Car (ORP -6295) from the back side. The petitioner was thrown out of the Motor Cycle and the left front wheel of the car ran over the right leg of the petitioner below the knee joint resulting in compound fracture at the tibia and fibula bones and also some sprain in the chest. The car belongs to the Finance Department of the Government of Orissa, which was being driven by one Gouranga Charan Nayak, the Driver of that car. The petitioner alleged that the car was being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed of 70 K.Ms. per hour and did not blow any her before it dashed from against the Motor Cycle from its back side near about Sri Ram Temple at Bhubaneswar. The petitioner was removed to the Bhubaneswar Hospital where he was given first -aid and was then shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack where he became an in -door patient from 20 -6 -1980 to 4 -8 -1980 and again from 27 -10 -1980 to 18 -11 -1980. He was surgically operated twice in the hospital. Even after discharge from the hospital, he has been although under medical treatment and claims to have been suffering from permanent disability affecting the future prospects of his life. He has given the details of expenses said to have been incurred by him for his treatment and also the loss sustained by him in his absence as well as for repairing the Motor Cycle. The total claim made by him before the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was Rs. 1,50,000/ -. The State of Orissa, who was impleaded as an opp. party, filed a written statement denying its liability. Their case is that the car was not being driven rashly or negligently and that it was at a reasonably speed. The claim of compensation claimed by the petitioner is also disputed and it is stated that the accident occurred as the petitioner lost his balance as a result of which he fell down from the Motor Cycle and incidentally sustained the injuries.

(3.) THE respondent has examined as many as 5 witnesses including himself as PW 5, PWs 1 and 2 are said to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. It appears from the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 and also admitted in the written statement filed by the State that the accident took place when the car was over -taking the Motor Cycle. Admittedly the respondent (PW 5) was on the left side of the road and the car dashed against the Motor Cycle from behind. The seriousness of the injuries suffered by the respondent is not disputed in this appeal. The entire evidence have been placed before me by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and I do not find any reason to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses who in all material particulars corroborate each other as well as the evidence of PW 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at one stage tried to make out a case that the Motor Cycle was being driven by the respondent at a reckless speed and that the Motor Car was moving at a much less speed. This argument was rightly abandoned for the simple reason that since the Motor Car has dashed the Motor Cycle from behind, the speed of the former must be more than the latter. The accident occurred on the road leading towards Vani Vihar near about Sri Ram Temple, which is admittedly a busy road. Over -taking a Motor vehicle on that road requires due care and caution, which it appears from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, was not taken by the driver of the car. The driver of the car is the only witness examined on behalf of the appellant, who stated that while he was going on the road leading to Master Canteen towards Vani Vihar one Motor Cycle came on his left side and dashed against the car in between the left front wheel and the door. The aforesaid story does not fit in with the written statement filed by the State, where it has been stated that the driver of the Motor Car after blowing horn tried to pass the Motor Cycle with utmost care and caution, but the Motor Cyclist somehow or other lost his balance and fell down from the Motor Cycle and received some injuries. In the circumstances, the finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car stands established by the evidence on record.