SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Ori) 139

High Court Of Orissa
N. K. Das, J.
ORISSA STATE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CUTTACK - Appellant
Versus
DHUMALI BEWA - Respondent
Misc. Appeal 94  Of  1979
Decided On : 12/07/1981

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.MOHANTY, B.C.SAHU, BIJOY MOHANTY, Puranjan Roy

The owner of a vehicle is liable for accidents caused by unauthorized drivers without a license, even if the accident occurs in a private area.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110A - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 3 - NEGLIGENCE - LIABILITY OF OWNER OF VEHICLE - DRIVER WITHOUT LICENSE - REVERSING VEHICLE WITHOUT BLOWING HORN - ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

A truck owned by the appellant corporation was being unloaded at a jetty. After unloading, the coolies, including the deceased and the injured, were engaged in filling up the unloaded ore into baskets behind the truck for loading into waiting barges. The driver of the truck reversed the vehicle without blowing any horn and ran over them, resulting in the death of three persons and injuries to one. The claimants of the deceased and the injured filed claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by an unauthorized driver who did not have a license. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants and held the owner of the vehicle liable.

Issues: 1. Whether the owner of the vehicle is liable for the accident caused by an unauthorized driver without a license? 2. Whether the insurer of the vehicle is liable to indemnify the owner for the compensation awarded to the claimants?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The owner of the vehicle is liable for the accident caused by an unauthorized driver without a license. The owner is responsible for ensuring that only authorized and licensed drivers operate their vehicles. The owner's negligence in allowing an unauthorized and unlicensed driver to operate the vehicle led to the accident. 2. The insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner for the compensation awarded to the claimants. The insurance policy excludes coverage for accidents caused by unauthorized drivers without a license.

Final Decision: The appeals filed by the owner of the vehicle and the cross-appeal filed by the claimants were dismissed. The Tribunal's award of compensation to the claimants was upheld.

N. K. DAS, J.

( 1 ) IN an accident by truck ORU 7741 belonging to the appellant Corporation, three persons namely. Bansidhar Mohanty, Kulamoni Das and Sunakar Mallick died and Nachha Swain was injured. This happened at the time of unloading in the jetty No. 1 of the Paradip Port on 26-4-1975 at about 3 A. M. M. A. No. 93/79 relates to the claim made by the widow and other claimants of Bansidhar. M. A. No. 90/79 relates to the claim made by the widow and other claimants of Kulamoni, M. A. 88/79 relates to the claim made by the widow and other claimants of Sunakar Mallick, The injured Nachha Swain is the claimant in M. A. 94 of 1979.

( 2 ) THEIR case is that the vehicle was being driven by one S. Appa Rao, an employee of the appellant After this truck was unloaded, the coolies, namely, three deceased persons and the injured along with others, were engaged in filling up the unloaded cromite ore into the baskets behind the truck for the purpose of loading the said ore into waiting barges. The driver of the truck reversed the vehicle without blowing any horn and ran over them which resulted in the death of the aforesaid three persons and injured Nachha Swain. The claimants of late Bansidhar have claimed Rupees 40,000/-, of Kulamoni have claimed Rs. 40,000/-, and of Sunakar Rs. 40,000/- as compensation. The injured Nachha Swain has claimed Rs. 30,000/- as compensation including medical expenses. Bansidhar w,as aged 30 years and was earning Rs. 300/- per month, Kulamoni was aged 30 years and was earning Rupees 300/- per month, Sunakar was aged 35 years and was earning Rs. 300/- per month and Nachha Swain was aged 35 years and he was earning Rs. 300/- per month. The appellant in the common written-statement in all these four cases which have been heard analogously denied that S. Appa Rao was driving the vehicle. It is admitted that S. Appa Rao is only a helper of the truck. He was not authorised to drive this vehicle. One Khirod Kumar Sahu was the driver of the vehicle. At the relevant time Khirod Kumar Sahu was taking tea in a nearby hotel who left the ignition key on the switch board of the vehicle and at that time S. Appa Rao was sleeping inside the vehicle. Under these circumstances the accident took place. Appellant is not aware as to how the accident took place. Therefore, the appellant is not liable. The insurer who is Opp. Party No. 2 in the common written statement denied the averments made in the petitions. It contended that it not liable to compensate the appellant as the vehicle was driven by S. Appa Rao who had no driving licence. Further the accident took place near Jetty No. 1 which is not a public place. For the aforesaid reasons, it is contended that Opp. Party No. 2 is not liable to indemnify Opp. Party No. 1.

( 3 ) THE tribunal has held that S. Appa Rao was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. He was not authorized to drive this vehicle. He was not holding a licence as driver at the time of the alleged accident. The accident took place in a private area. The real driver Khirod Kumar Sahu was negligent in his duties. Therefore, the insurer is not liable and the owner is liable.

( 4 ) IN case of Bansidhar, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/ -. In case of Kulamoni it has awarded Rs. 25,000/-and in case of Sunakar, it has awarded Rs. 15,000/ -. In case of Nachha Swain it has allowed Rs. 5,000/ -. Interest has been allowed at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. A consolidated cost of Rs. 250,00/- has been allowed.

( 5 ) IT appears that the plea taken in the written-statement by the present appellant and the statement of the driver. O. P. W. 2 are not in consonance with each other. From the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6, it is clear that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. There is no dispute about the fact that the accident took place by the reverse movement of the vehicle when the deceased persons and the iniured were busy behi




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top