KARUNAKAR PRADHAN Vs. SAROJINI MISHRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have been preferred under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the decision of the District Judge of Puri -Cum -Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sambalpur awarding compensation of Rs. 93,072/ - in favour of Respondents 1 to 5.

(2.) LATE Nilakantha Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was working as the Sub -Divisional Officer, Electrical in the General Electrical Division No. 11, P.W.D., Orissa at Sambalpur. He was aged 46 years. His life came to an abrupt end on 18 -10 -72 while he was travelling by a Government jeep on official duty from Sambalpur to Deogarh. The jeep was moving from west to east on the Sambalpur -Deogarh road. A truck which was heavily loaded and was moving from east to west dashed against the jeep near mile stone No. 258/1 which is about 2 kilometres east towards from Jamakira crossing. There was a culvert near the place of accident and the width of the road is about 22 feet. There is a curve a little ahead of the culvert. The collision took place while the two vehicles were passing each other near the culvert It was alleged that both the vehicles were running at a high speed. Before the accident, horn was not sounded by the drivers of both the vehicles. According to the claimants, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. As a result of the collision the jeep was pushed to its rear to a considerable distance and it fell on the road side nala. The deceased who was sitting on the front seat of the jeep was thrown out of the vehicle and was run over by the truck. He succumbed to the injuries instantaneously at the spot. The jeep was badly damaged and its driver and the occupants were seriously injured.

(3.) KARUNAKAR Pradhan, the Appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 1977 contended that he had already sold away the truck in question on 21.1.12 to Natabar Biswal and as such he was in no way responsible for the accident and the claim against him is untenable.