Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest ... vs Shila Sharma And Anr. [Alongwith M.A. ... on 7 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: I(2004)ACC800, 96(2003)CLT509, 2003 A I H C 4501, (2004) 1 ACC 800, (2004) 1 TAC 22, (2003) 96 CUT LT 509
Author: B.P. Das
Bench: B.P. Das
JUDGMENT B.P. Das, J.
1. These two appeals as well as M.A. No. 550 of 1994 are directed against the common order dated 11.3.1994 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Northern Division, Sambalpur in Misc. (A) Case Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of 1991(S). As all the three claim cases arose out of one and the same accident, the appeals were made analogous. During pendency of the appeals before this Court, M.A. No. 550 of 1994 having been dismissed for default on 21.8.1997, M.A. Nos. 546 and 549 of 1994 were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 28.6.1990 the deceased Ramesh Chandra Sharma who was working as Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. (Plantation Division), Bolangir was proceeding towards Bolangir from Sambalpur via Padampur along with his wife-Jharana Sharma and daughter-Sheela in his office Jeep bearing Registration No. ORR-5233 to attend certain official work at Padampur At about 9 A.M. while the jeep was passing near village Govindpur, which is 10 KMs. away from Baragarh, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the vehicle, which was then at a high speed, could not be controlled and it went off the road and capsized. As a result of such accident, the deceased as well as his wife and daughter sustained severe injuries on their bodies and the deceased Ramesh Chandra Sharma breathed his last in Bargarh hospital while under treatment.
3. The legal representatives of the deceased, namely, the widow-Jharana and her two daughters; Sheela and Shelley filed an application before the Tribunal being M.A.C. No. 21/1991 claiming compensation for the death of the deceased-Ramesh Chandra Sharma in the motor vehicular accident. Similarly, the widow-Jharana and her daughter-Sheela had filed two separate applications registered as M.A.C. Nos. 20 and 22 of 1991 respectively claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the same accident.
4. The plea taken by the present appellant-Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. before the Tribunal was that even though the Divisional Manager, Forest Development Corporation Ltd., was a party to the proceedings, the owner of the vehicle i.e. the Orissa Forest Development Corporation, having not been made a party, the claims raised against the appellant were not sustainable. The further plea was that Jharana and Sheela were not traveling in that Jeep and had not sustained any injury. It was also stated that the deceased Ramesh himself was driving the Jeep in spite of protest of the driver and due to his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred for which the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. The insurer-New India Assurance Company, which was arrayed as opposite party No. 2 before the Tribunal, disputed the policy of insurance.
5. As all the three cases arose out of the same accident, they were taken up together by the Tribunal for hearing. The Tribunal on a scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence came to hold that due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep, the accident occurred in which the deceased died and his widow-Jharana and daughter-Sheela sustained injuries for which claimants were entitled to compensation and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/-to claimant-Jharana in MAC No. 20/91, Rs. 3,60,000/- to the claimants in MAC No. 21/91 and Rs. 18,000/- to the claimant-Sheela in MAC No. 22/91 and directed the present appellant to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimants as well as the father of the deceased.
6. Aggrieved by the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C. Nos. 20,21 and 22 of 1991, the appellant i.e. Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. (Plantation Division), Bolangir, has filed M.A. Nos. 550, 549 and 546 of 1994 respectively. From the record of M.A. No. 550 of 1994, it appears that due to non-compliance of the o.rder dated 16.7.1997, the said appeal stood dismissed.
7. Let me first deal with M.A. No. 549 of 1994 wherein challenge is made to the judgment passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- in favour of the claimants-Jharana, Sheela and Shelly as well as the father of the deceased for the death of Ramesh Chandra Sharma.
8. The Tribunal framed three issues, which are as follows :
(i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No. ORR-5233 and resulting the death of Ramesh Chandra Sharma ?
(ii) Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what extent ?
(iii) To what other relief the parties are entitled ?
9. While deciding issue No. 1, the Tribunal on evaluating the evidence on record held that there is absolutely no evidence to believe the claim of the appellant that the deceased was driving the vehicle; rather the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to the effect that the office driver was driving the vehicle, gets corroboration from the police investigation and accordingly the Tribunal came to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the accident occurred in which Ramesh Chandra Sharma died and Jharana and Sheela sustained injuries.
10. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are common to the other cases filed by the injured persons. The Deputy Divisional Manager working in Orissa Forest Development Corporation, Bolangir (O.P.W. 1) who was examined on behalf of O.P. 1, in his cross-examination admitted that no premium amount had been paid by anybody towards insurance of the vehicle covering the date of accident and basing upon the evidence on record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle was insured with opposite party No. 2 for the period from 9.6.1989 to 8.6.1990 under one policy and from 18.7.1990 to 17.7.1991 under another policy. As there is no evidence that the second policy is a continuation of the previous policy so as to cover the period of accident and as O.P.W. No. 1 for O.P. No. 1 admitted that no premium had been paid for the jeep for the period covering the accident, the Tribunal held that the insurance company is not at all liable to indemnify the owner. The Tribunal in M.A.C. No. 21 of 1991 awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- as compensation for the death of said Ramesh. In M.A.C. No. 22 of 1991, for the injuries sustained by Sheela Sharma, an amount of Rs. 18,000/-was awarded as compensation. Similarly, in M.A.C. No. 20 of 1991, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by Jharana Sharma.
11. The Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation challenges the award on several grounds. It is submitted that the driver of the vehicle has categorically stated in his evidence that the deceased was driving the vehicle. But, on perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the learned Tribunal has considered this aspect in paragraph-10 wherein he has placed reliance upon the evidence of an independent witness, P.W. 3, who was an Advocate of Sambalpur, and was an eye-witness to the occurrence. The driver of the vehicle and the peon of the Forest Development Corporation cannot be said to be independent witnesses as they are under the control of their officials. That apart, the log book has not been produced by the present appellant to prove that the driver was not driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. The fact remains that the driver had also sustained injuries and was hospitalized for two months. The Tribunal has also relied upon the final report submitted by the police after investigation into the case wherein it has been categorically stated that it was the driver who was driving the vehicle. There is nothing in the evidence on record to dispute the final report submitted by the investigating officer save and except the statement of interested witnesses who were the employees of Forest Development Corporation. The findings so arrived at by the Tribunal, in my considered opinion, are based on evidence and there is no ground to disturb the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal.
12. Accordingly the Misc. Appeals are devoid of merit and are dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs.