Orissa High Court
Sri Laxmidhar Sahu vs Subash Sekhar Panda And Others on 9 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.308 of 2004
Sri Laxmidhar Sahu .... Appellant
Mr. D. Pattanaik, Advocate
-versus-
Subash Sekhar Panda and others .... Respondents
Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Mr. S.K. Swain, Advocate for Respondent No.4
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
09.02.2022
Order No.
14. 1. Heard Mr. D. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Appellant-
claimant, Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.3-New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Mr. S.K. Swain, learned
counsel for the Respondent No.4-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. The present appeal by the claimant-Appellant arises out of a
common judgment dated 19.3.2004 passed in MAC No.44/17 of
1999-2001. The impugned judgment is common in the sense that
it deals with three cases, viz., MAC No.130/17 of 1999-2000,
MAC No.44/17 of 1999-2001 and MAC No.96/04 of 1998-2002.
However, the claimant, namely, Laxmidhar Sahu in MAC
No.44/17 of 1999-2001 is the Appellant in the present appeal.
3. Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3
and Mr. S.K. Swain, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4
submits upon instruction that other two claimants have not
preferred any appeal.
4. The case of the present claimant, Laxmidhar Sahu is that
while he was moving in the Bus bearing Registration No.ORW-
2121, the same had collided with the Truck bearing Registration
No.WB-03-1993 in the front. The Appellant sustained multiple
injuries over his left leg, right hand, left chest and other body
parts.
5. Learned Tribunal upon adjudication came to the finding that
the Truck had no negligence to the cause of accident, but the
driver of the Bus is solely negligent in causing the accident. Thus
the owner of the Truck was exonerated from payment of any
compensation and the entire negligence was fixed on the driver of
the Bus. However, the Bus was not found validly insured on the
date of the accident and as such, the owner was burdened to pay
the compensation to the tune of Rs.69,680/- to the present
Appellant along with 6% interest per annum from the date of
application.
6. It is submitted by the Appellant that the finding of the learned
Tribunal completely exonerating the driver of the Truck from the
negligence is not justified. As per the Appellant, the driver of the
Truck is equally negligent with the driver of the Bus for
contributing to the cause of accident. However, the appellant did
not receive any compensation from the owner of the Truck yet.
7. After hearing Mr. S. K. Sarangi, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.3, who is the insurer of the Bus (though the Bus
was not validly insured on the date of accident) and Mr. S.K.
Swain, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4, the insurer of
the Truck and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals
that the learned Tribunal has based his conclusion on the report of
the local MVI, who was examined as OPW-2. It is true that said
OPW-2 has opined upon verification of the spot and both the
vehicles that since the Bus while overtaking another vehicle went
to extreme right-side of the road resulting front collision with the
Truck which was coming from the opposite direction. Relying on
the said reasoning explained by the MVI, learned Tribunal has
completely exonerated the Truck driver from the negligence.
8. Admittedly, this is a case of front collision and both the
vehicles were moving. Under the principles of res ipsa loquitor
vis-à-vis position of both vehicles, the driver of the Truck cannot
be completely exonerated from the negligence, even accepting the
fact that the Bus went to extreme right side of the road resulting
collision. Since this is admittedly a case of composite negligence,
in the given situations of the case and considering all such facts
brought on record, the negligence on the part of the drivers of the
Bus and the Truck would be 60:40. Accordingly, the owner of the
Truck is held vicariously liable to bear the compensation to the
extent of 40%.
9. Accordingly, Respondent No.4, who is the admitted insurer of
the Truck, is liable to indemnify amount of compensation on
behalf of the owner of the Truck to the extent of 40% as directed
by the learned Tribunal.
10. Consequently, Respondent No.4 - the Oriental Insurance
Company Limited is directed to pay 40% of the amount of the
compensation as directed by the learned Tribunal along with
interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application within a period of eight weeks from today which shall
be disbursed to the claimant-Laxmidhar Sahu.
11. The MACA is disposed of.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
