Orissa High Court
Orissa State Road Transport vs Motin Prava Patra & Others (In Maca ... on 14 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.981 of 2013
MACA No.981 & 980 of 2013
Orissa State Road Transport Appellant
Corporation, Paribahan Bhawan, .... in both the
Bhubaneswar appeals
Mr. Braja Kishore Sahoo, Advocate in both appeals
-versus-
Motin Prava Patra & Others (In MACA No.981/2013)
Sabitri Rana and Others (In MACA No.980/2013)
.... Respondents
Mr. K.K. Das, counsel for claimant -
Respondents in both the appeals
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
14.11.2022
Order No.
09. 1. The matters are taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. B.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the OSRTC
(Corporation) and Mr. K.K. Das, learned counsel for the claimant-
Respondents.
3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the claimants submits that in
MACA No.980 of 2013 the claimant - Respondent No.2, namely
Bikali Charan Rana died in the meantime on 24th March, 2016 and all
other LRs being already on record, no substitution is required.
4. Both the appeals being arise out of same common judgment, are
heard together and disposed of by this common order.
5. Both the appeals by the Corporation are against the same
impugned judgment dated 23rd November, 2012 of learned 2nd MACT,
Cuttack passed in Misc. Case No.370 and 371 of 1993. MACA
No.981 of 2013 is in respect of Misc. Case No.370 of 1993, wherein
compensation to the tune of Rs.3,70,300/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 12th
May, 1993 has been granted on account of death of deceased
Hrusikesh Patra in the motor vehicular accident dated 6th April, 1993.
MACA No.980 of 2013 is in respect of Misc. Case No.371 of 1993,
wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.3,38,972/- along with interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.
12th May, 1993 has been granted on account of death of deceased
Daitari Rana in the same motor vehicular accident.
6. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Corporation questions the
negligence fixed on the driver of the offending bus. As per him, the
entire negligence fixed on the driver of the bus completely reversing
the earlier finding dated 26th September, 2007 of the same Tribunal is
unteanable and misconceived.
7. It needs to be mentioned here that the tribunal had earlier
disposed of both the claim application by passing 'nil award' on 26th
September, 2007. The same was challenged by the claimants in
MACA No.208 and 209 of 2004 before this Court. This Court by
order dated 8th January, 2009 remanded the matter back to the tribunal
for de novo disposal. Thereafter, present impugned award dated 23rd
November, 2012 has been passed by the tribunal.
8. From perusal of the copy of order dated 8th January, 2009 of
this court passed in MACA No.208 and 209 of 2004 it is seen that the
same was an open remand for fresh adjudication of the claim
applications. Therefore, what is contended by Mr. Sahoo that the
negligence fixed earlier on the driver of the scooter (one of the
deceased) has no merit for consideration. This court in its earlier order
has further observed that the tribunal has not considered all the
evidence in proper perspective. So, no point is seen in favour of
contention of Mr. Sahoo to fix any contributory negligence on the
driver of the scooter against the finding of the tribunal in the present
impugned judgment.
9. The facts of the case reveal that both the deceased persons,
namely Hrusikesh Patra and Daitari Rana were moving in the scooter
bearing registration number OR 04 3204 and the accident took place
due to front collusion of the scooter with the offending bus bearing
registration number OR 05 8945. In the accident both the riders of the
scooter died.
10. Five witnesses were examined from the side of the claimants
and two witnesses were examined from the side of Opposite Party -
Corporation. Besides that a bunch of documents including police
papers were adduced from the side of the claimants. The report of
MVI dated 12th April, 1993 and the report of Opposite Party No.2
dated 15th April, 1993 were adduced in evidence from the side of the
Opposite Party (present appellant) in support of their stand.
11. The entire contention of Mr. Sahoo is regarding negligence
aspect. Mr. Sahoo submits that since the accident was a front
collusion, where the MVI has stated that the riders of the scooter were
moving in higher speed, contributory negligence at least to the extent
of 50% ought to have been fixed on the deceased persons.
12. It is seen that, P.W.5 is the informant who lodged the F.I.R.
under Ext.1. He was an eye-witness to the accident. Besides him,
P.W.3 and P.W.4 are two other eye-witnesses to the accident. They all
have stated consistently that the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. On the other
hand, O.P.W.1, who was one of the officers of Opposite Party -
Corporation, claims that he was travelling in the same offending bus
at the time of accident and as per him, the accident took place due to
negligence of the driver of the scooter while overtaking a truck. As
per Ext.A, the MVI in his enquiry report has stated that the right front
wheel of the offending bus was about 6 feet from the left side of the
road and the scooter was at 5 feet from its left edge of the road.
Nothing has been mentioned in the MVI report about overtaking of
the truck by the driver of the scooter at the time of accident. Similarly,
O.P.W.2 in his report under Ext.B has not mentioned anything about
overtaking of the truck. Both the reports under Ext.A and B suggest
that since the scooter was in the middle of the road, the accident took
place due to wrong judgment of the drivers.
13. At the same time, it reveals from the police investigation report
as well as the contents of the F.I.R. that, the accident took place due to
negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. The police
accordingly submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending
bus for commission of offence under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of
the I.P.C. Therefore, the contention of the claimants being found
supported with the findings of the police investigation report, the
preponderance of probability is seen in favour of the claimants that
the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the bus.
Moreover, no negligence can itself be attributed on the driver of the
scooter as contended by Mr. Sahoo for the mere reason that the
accident was a front collusion. When police has submitted its report
against the driver of the bus, prima facie negligence is satisfied on the
part of the driver of the offending bus. Accordingly, on the touchstone
of the principles of preponderance of probability, the tribunal has
approached rightly in fixing negligence on the driver of the offending
bus and no fault is seen therein to interfere with.
14. Mr. Sahoo does not raise any objection towards the quantum of
compensation. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment also no such
flaw in computation of quantum of compensation is seen.
15. In the result both the appeals are dismissed and the Appellant -
OSRTC is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along
with interest before the tribunal in terms of its direction within a
period of two months from today; where-after the same shall be
disbursed in favour of respective claimants (except claimant -
Respondent No.2 in MACA No.980 of 2013, namely, Bikali Charan
Rana) on same terms and proportion as contained in the impugned
award.
16. The statutory deposit made by the Corporation in both the
appeal before this court along with accrued interest be refunded on
proper application and on production of proof of deposit before the
tribunal.
17. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
