JUDGMENT : B.K. Ray, J. - M.A. Nos. 11 and 41 of 1971 arise out of Misc. case No. 175 of 1969 and M.A. Nos. 12 and 42 arises out of Misc. Case No. 176 of 1969. Both these Misc. cases were started u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) relating to an accident caused by a State Govt., jeep bearing No. ORC 2497 resulting in the death of a mason named Daitari Sahu and another Pathani Behera. Misc. Case No. 175 of 1969 was started at the instance of Balaram Sahu and Lingaraj Sahu, sons of Bbramar Sabu and Bhramar Sahu brother of the deceased Daitari claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. Misc. Case No. 176 of 1969 was started by one Khetra Behera, father of the deceased Pathani Behra claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000 -. Both these misc. cases were made analogous by the Claims Tribunal and were disposed of by a common judgment. The aforesaid appeals therefore which arise out of the said judgment have been made analogous, and hence this judgment will govern all of them. 2. The brief facts disclosed in both the claim applications are as follows-On 5.9.69 at about 4.00 p.m. the aforesaid jeep being driven by Prafulla Kumar Misra Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. (Appellant in M.A. Nos. 11 and 12 of 1971) was proceeding towards Cuttack Chandi Chuak from the direction of Barbati Stadium. Due to rash and negligent driving the jeep instead of proceeding on the straight road took a sudden turn to the left and dashed against Daitari Sahu, deceased in Misc. case No. 175 of 1969 and another Pathani Behera, aged ten years, deceased in Misc. case No. 176 of 1969. As a result of this accident, Daitari Sahu died at the spot and Pathani Behera received severe injuries which ultimately resulted in his death while being removed to the hospital. These persons were then by the side of the compound wall of Mr. Harihar Singh Mardaraj. The left side front wheel of the jeep after dashing against the aforesaid two persons went inside a trench dug just in front of the compound wall of Mr. Mardaraj. As a result of this the jeep stopped there. 3. These persons were then by the side of the compound wall of Mr. Harihar Singh Mardaraj. The left side front wheel of the jeep after dashing against the aforesaid two persons went inside a trench dug just in front of the compound wall of Mr. Mardaraj. As a result of this the jeep stopped there. 3. The defence taken by the State of Orissa in both the cases is that the claim applications are not properly constituted; that the claims in both the cases are excessive; that the jeep was being driven in a normal speed and while so running, the rear end of the drag link of the steering opened out due to mechanical trouble in the vehicle and that as a result of this mechanical trouble the accident occurred. According to the opposite parties, there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. 4. The Tribunal has held that claimant Nos. 1 and 2 in Misc. case No. 175 of 1969 are not entitled to damages regarding the claim of Bhramar Sahu in the said Misc. case who was in joint mess with the deceased Daitari and was depending upon the income of the deceased has been awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 2,700/-against the State Govt., and the driver (o. p. w. 2) with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. Regarding the claim of Khetra Behera in Misc. case on. 176 of 1969 the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,452/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award till realisation. In paragraph 13 of the judgment the Tribunal has made an observation that the amount awarded in favour of Khetra Behera in Misc. case No. 176 of 1969 for himself and his wife shall be paid by the State Govt., which may recover the same if it so likes from Prafulla Kumar Misra Assistant Engineer, driving the jeep at the time of the accident. Hence the State has preferred M.A. Nos. 41 and 42 of 1971 and the said Prafulla Kumar Misra has preferred M.A. Nos. 11 and 12 of 1971. 5. Hence the State has preferred M.A. Nos. 41 and 42 of 1971 and the said Prafulla Kumar Misra has preferred M.A. Nos. 11 and 12 of 1971. 5. It transpires from the evidence that the jeep was coming from the side of Barbati Stadium towards Cuttack Chandi Chuak. The road at the place of accident was running from north to south. The pitched portion of the road was 24 to 25 feet wide at the place of the accident. The breadth of the earthen road on each side of the pitched road at the place was about 10 feet. On the eastern portion of the earthen road where the accident occurred, there was a trench running parallel to the road. The western side of the trench was at a distance of 6 feet from the eastern side of the pitched portion of the road. The trench was at a distance of about 2 feet from the compound wall of P.W.6 which was running parallel to the road. The breadth of the trench from east to west was 1 1/2 feet. 6. P.Ws. 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 have seen the accident. Of them, P.Ws. 4, 5, 8 and 9 say that the jeep was coming rashly and with a terrific speed when it suddenly took a turn to the left from the middle of the pitched portion of the road and dashed against the two victims. 7. The M.V.I. (O.P.W.1) who visited the place of accident shortly after it occurred and examined the vehicle says that there was no skid mark at the place of the accident meaning thereby that brake was not applied to the vehicle either immediately before or during collision. The front left wheel of the vehicle was found inside the trench and the vehicle was in a tilted condition. This means that the vehicle turned towards the left from the middle of the pitched road, went over about 6 feet of earthen road and dashed against the two victims and after dashing against the two victims ran into the trench. O.P.W. 1 says that although hand brake of the jeep was not in order, its foot brake was alright. This means that the vehicle turned towards the left from the middle of the pitched road, went over about 6 feet of earthen road and dashed against the two victims and after dashing against the two victims ran into the trench. O.P.W. 1 says that although hand brake of the jeep was not in order, its foot brake was alright. It follows that O.P.W. 2 could have used the foot brake to avoid the accident when according to his evidence he saw the two victims at a distance of 6 to 7 feet before the accident near the earth heap by the side of the trench. This evidence together with the report of O.P.W. 1 about the spot, the situation of the road, the speed with which the vehicle was moving as per the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 8 and 9 and the fact that the foot brake was in order conclusively proves the negligence and rashness on the part of O.P.W.2. 8. Coming to the mechanical defect as contended by learned Additional Standing counsel, it transpires from the evidence of O.P.W. 1 that he found the drag link open in the vehicle at the time of his examination after the accident. At one place this witness says that due to sudden opening of the drag link, while the vehicle was in motion, the steering got out of control, and therefore, the vehicle took a turn to the left. But in cross examination he admits that he is unable to say if the drag link suddenly opened while the vehicle was going on the middle of the pitched portion of the road. He also admits that he cannot say the cause of the accident. O.P.W. 2 however comes forward with a story that the steering system of the vehicle was in a loose condition when he took it for the fateful drive. According to him, the vehicle was wobbling. If this was the condition of the vehicle, O.P.W. 2 should not have taken the risk of driving it or if he did so, he should have been more careful and cautious. In other hand, the evidence discloses that he was driving the vehicle in a reckless speed. According to him, the vehicle was wobbling. If this was the condition of the vehicle, O.P.W. 2 should not have taken the risk of driving it or if he did so, he should have been more careful and cautious. In other hand, the evidence discloses that he was driving the vehicle in a reckless speed. Further being conscious of the fact that the vehicle was not in a proper condition he should have immediately applied foot brake which was in order when he found the vehicle suddenly taking a turn to the left. That apart, the evidence regarding the mechanical defect of the vehicle is unworthy of any credit. Even though O.P.W. 2 says that the vehicle had been to a garage for repair of the defect in the steering system and that this fact would appear from the log book of the vehicle neither the log book was produced nor any body of the garage was examined. Further, the vehicle in question being a Govt., vehicle, there must have been accounts and other papers to show that the steering system of the vehicle in question was defective and that it underwent repairs. None of these papers were produced before the Tribunal. It is just possible that the drag link got opened as a result of the accident. There is absolutely no evidence that the victims in any way contributed to the cause of the accident. It is true that in a case like this it is for the claimant to establish that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver. Upon the evidence disclosed in the case, there cannot be any doubt that the claimants in the two cases have discharged the burden that lay upon them. That apart, where the cause of the accident is not known, the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies. Upon the evidence disclosed in the case, there cannot be any doubt that the claimants in the two cases have discharged the burden that lay upon them. That apart, where the cause of the accident is not known, the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies. In the cases before me, if the oral evidence regarding the speed with which the vehicle was moving at the relevant time is not accepted, still in view of the fact that the breadth of the road was 24 to 25 feet at the place of the accident; that the two victims were beyond the pitched portion of the road and were at a distance of 6 to 7 feet from the eastern side of the pitched portion of the road and that the foot brake of the vehicle was in order, the principle of res ipsa loquitur would apply. In the result, therefore, I agree with the Tribunal that the accident resulting in the death of the two victims was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by O.P.W. 2. 9. So far as the quantum of damages awarded is concerned, on a reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, I am satisfied that it has taken a very reasonable view and the assessment of damages appears to be very modest. Learned Additional Standing Counsel has therefore, not very seriously challenged this; aspect of the award. 10. The State of Orissa being the owner of the vehicle which caused the accident is liable for the damages u/s 110-B of the Act. The appeals preferred by it therefore have no merit and are liable to be dismissed. 11. Coming to the two appeals filed by Prafulla Kumar Misra, driver of the vehicle (O.P.W. 2) Mr. S.C. Mohapatra learned Counsel for Appellant contends that even though u/s 110-B of the Act the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident may be made liable for compensation, under Rule 6 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960 notice of the application for damages has to be sent only to the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and its insurer and not to the driver. The rule further provides that a copy of the application together with a notice of the date on which the Tribunal will hear it has also to be served upon only the owner and the insurer. The rule further provides that a copy of the application together with a notice of the date on which the Tribunal will hear it has also to be served upon only the owner and the insurer. Columns 15 and 16 of the prescribed form for the application are meant for naming the owner of the vehicle and its insurer. There is no column for naming the driver. Therefore, according to Mr. Mohapatra, the driver of the vehicle is not arrayed as a party in the application. Accordingly, under Rule 6 when the Tribunal has to call upon the parties to produce on the date of hearing any evidence which they may wish to tender, the word 'parties' includes only the owner and the insurer and not the driver. Consequently, even though u/s 110-B of the Act driver can be made liable the prescribed rules and the application form under the Act do not intend to rope in the driver. The driver is not a party to the application. Therefore, the Tribunal is not required to notice him and to call upon him to adduce any evidence. In other words, according to Mr. Mohapatra, the rules under the Act are not intended to make the driver liable for damages for an accident. The present enquiry in both the Misc. cases have been conducted according to the rules prescribed under the Act. In this view, Mr. Mohapatra is right in his contention that in an enquiry provided under the rules the driver of a vehicle is not a party. Naturally, therefore, a claims Tribunal holding an enquiry as provided under the rules is not empowered to notice the driver to appear in the enquiry and to adduce evidence in his support. That being so, it must be held that a driver cannot be made liable for the damages awarded by the Tribunal in the present cases in an enquiry as per the rules framed under the Act. So, the observation of the Tribunal that the State if it so likes may recover the damages after paying the same to the claimants from the driver is not warranted under the law. M.A. Nos. 11 and 12 of 1971 therefore, are to succeed as the observation against the Appellant in the impugned judgment is unwarranted. 12. In the result, therefore, M.A. Nos. 41 and 42 of 1971 are dismissed and M.A. Nos. M.A. Nos. 11 and 12 of 1971 therefore, are to succeed as the observation against the Appellant in the impugned judgment is unwarranted. 12. In the result, therefore, M.A. Nos. 41 and 42 of 1971 are dismissed and M.A. Nos. 11 and 12 of 1971 are allowed and the aforesaid observation of the Tribunal against the driver in the judgment under appeal is quashed. In the circumstances, parties are to bear their own costs. Final Result : Dismissed