JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - Nityaranjan Bohidar was a member of the Indian Forest Service and was serving in August, 1978 as the Divisional Forest Officer of Baripada Division under the State Government. He was proceeding on 27-8-1978 from Baripada to Bhubaneswar in a jeep bearing registration number O. R. M. 2030 belonging to the State of Orissa. Near village Manguli there was a collusion between the jeep and a mini bus bearing registration number O. R. J. 3677 proceeding towards Keonjhar from Cuttack. The bus belonged to Respondent No. 2 and was insured with Respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Company. Upon collision the bus went off the road and landed itself in a puddle on the left. The jeep took a ?U? turn and stopped facing towards Baripada. Sri Bohidar was sandwiched between the dash board and the back rest of the seat which he was occupying and met instantaneous death. His brother-in-law was severely injured and succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. A passenger in the bus also received injuries and succumbed thereto. Late Bohidar was 52 years of age at the time of accident. He left behind his widow, two daughters and a son who lodged as his legal representative a claim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-;. It is unnecessary to state the claims lodged by others. 2. It was alleged by the claimants that the time of accident it was raining and the accident took; place due to the rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles. The State, the owner of the jeep, denied the allegations that the jeep was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner Satyabadi Behera, a Forest Guard, who was allowed by Late Bohidar to drive the vehicle was not the authorised driver .nor was Late Bohidar travelling in the vehicle in course of official duty. Hence, no liability would be fastened on the State. The quantum and the basis of the claim were traversed. 3. To sustain the claim, the claimants examined the doctor as p.w. 1, the Motor Vehicle Inspector as p.w. 2 and an employee of the office of the D. F. O., Baripada at the relevant time as p.w. 3. The widow of Shri Bohidar examined herself as p.w. 4. Certified copy of the report of the M. V. I. was exhibited as Ext. The widow of Shri Bohidar examined herself as p.w. 4. Certified copy of the report of the M. V. I. was exhibited as Ext. 4, Payslip issued by the Accountant General, Orissa, relating to the emoluments of Shri Bohidar was exhibited as Ext. 5. Ext. 8 was relied upon to show that Shri Bohidar as the Conducting Officer in a proceeding pending before the Administrative Tribunal and was to appear before the Tribunal on 28-8-1978. Ext. 7 is the order of appointment of Sri Satyabadi Behera stipulating that he would act as the driver in the absence of the regular driver. The owner of the bus examined the driver of the bus to testify as to the manner and circumstances in which the accident came about. 4. Though the owner of the bus had taken a plea that the jeep was being driven by Shri Bohidar, having regard to the specific plea of the State, the tribunal held that the jeep was being driven by Sri Satyabadi Behera as the driver. ?The tribunal further held that Shri Behera had been authorised to drive the vehicle. The State of Orissa did not adduce any evidence as to the circumstances in which the collision took place. Upon a consideration of the evidence of the driver of the bus (O. P. W. l), evidence of the M. V. I. (p.w. 2) and his report (Ext. 4), the tribunal held that ?the accident had been the out-come of rash and negligent manner of driving from the side of the driver of the jeep and that he was alone responsible for the same which has resulted in the death of three persons?, and the owner of the jeer, if at all, was liable for the consequence of the accident. The tribunal, however, absolved the State from any liability holding that the risk was taken voluntarily by Shri Bohidar and he was a willing party to the risk that the driver of the jeep was taking. In my opinion, the aforesaid holding h; based upon pure conjecture. An inference is not deducible that the controlling officer had accepted the risk to his life and person from the mere fact that he was travelling in the vehicle which was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently. There would be many ?ifs? and ?buts? In my opinion, the aforesaid holding h; based upon pure conjecture. An inference is not deducible that the controlling officer had accepted the risk to his life and person from the mere fact that he was travelling in the vehicle which was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently. There would be many ?ifs? and ?buts? between the fact of his travelling in a vehicle driven by the driver rashly and negligently and the inference deduced. There is no evidence that he had instructed the driver to drive rashly and negligently. There is no evidence of the speed at which the vehicle was moving. Even the speed by itself is not conclusive. A particular speed which may not be rash in some circumstances, may be rash in different circumstances. For example, driving a vehicle at a speed of 60 K. Ms. may not be rash on a National Highway but it would be definitely rash in a narrow and crowded lane. Rashness would depend upon the condition of the road, the weather condition. Negligence and rashness may develop in a trice. Failure to slow down or apply the brake in given circumstances may amount to negligence. Not allowing a passage to vehicles whether coming from the front or proceeding from the back where circumstances warrant such a course of action would amount to rashness or negligence. A person may not be driving a vehicle rashly or negligently almost throughout the journey but may act rashly or negligently at a particular point of time which might entail in a collision. A person travelling along with the driver cannot predict how the driver would be have at a particular time having regard to the situation/contingencies. The tribunal assumed as if the jeep was being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner right from Baripada and Shri Bohidar was an accomplice. The evidence, direct and circumstantial, do not support such an assumption. The tribunal was of the view that when blame was laid for the accident on both sides, the loss lay where it fell and any harm suffered voluntarily did not constitute a legal injury and was not actionable. The concept has no application to the facts of the case unless one draws conjectural inference. The tribunal was of the view that when blame was laid for the accident on both sides, the loss lay where it fell and any harm suffered voluntarily did not constitute a legal injury and was not actionable. The concept has no application to the facts of the case unless one draws conjectural inference. As I have observed earlier, there is no evidence that Shri Bohidar was an accomplice to the act of the driver driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. From the mere fact that he was also travelling in the vehicle, it cannot be inferred that he was a party to the act. Mr. Bohidar was not the second driver-in-charge nor was he obliged to supervise and oversee the driving of the driver. He need not have remained vigilant. Hence, I vacate the finding that the risk had been voluntarily encountered. It may be also conjectured in a different way that the driver was uncontrollable, may have defied Sri Bohidar. Such arguments are available when one enters the conjectural thicket leaving the materials on record aside. It is not a case where the facts speak for themselves. Hence. I have no hesitation in vacating the finding of the tribunal that Shri Bohidar had incurred the risk voluntarily. Principle of bailment equally has no application. Hence, the conclusion is that the State would be vicariously liable for the rash and negligent act of the driver of the jeep. 5. The tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs. 50,000/- Counsel for the Appellants has assailed the same as grossly low inadequate and unfair. Shri Bohidar was aged 52 years and was a Divisional Forest Officer and had six years to serve. The emoluments payable to the employees of the State Government underwent revision in 1981. Shri Bohidar would nave received increments from year to year. There would have been corresponding increase in the D. A. and A. D. A. receivable by him. He had two daughters and a son. He was maintaining them and defraying the expenses for their education. He would have given his daughters in marriage before his retirement. The widow examined as p.w. 4 deposed that Shri . Bohidar was contributing Rs. 1400/- per month for defraying the expenses. The tribunal determined Rs. 700/- as the monthly dependency and quantified the compensation on that basis. With respect to the tribunal. I differ. He would have given his daughters in marriage before his retirement. The widow examined as p.w. 4 deposed that Shri . Bohidar was contributing Rs. 1400/- per month for defraying the expenses. The tribunal determined Rs. 700/- as the monthly dependency and quantified the compensation on that basis. With respect to the tribunal. I differ. The family of Shri Bohidar must have been requiring much more for meeting the day to day expenses and the educational expenses of the children, having regard to the status of Shri Bohidar. As I have already said, Shri Bohidar would have given the daughters in marriage. Taking all aspects into consideration, giving due allowance for uncertainty of life and lumpsum payment and the fact that the widow received family pension some authorities held family pension received by the widow should be left out of consideration and taking into account the loss to the estate, loss of consortium, pain and suffering that the claimants must have passed through and the deprivation they have suffered and the higher amount of gratuity that would have been receivable, I assess the compensation at the modest figure of Rs. 80.000/- payable by the State of Orissa. I accordingly set aside the decision of the tribunal in Misc. Case No. 36 of 1979 and allow the claim to the extent aforesaid. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of application till payment. If the amount be not paid within three months from today, it shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200/-. Final Result : Allowed