Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1000 (ORI)

STATE OF ORISSA v. NIBEDITA BIDYADHAR

2008-11-06

A.S.NAIDU

body2008
JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The judgment dated 14th November, 2005 passed by the District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Balangir in MJC Nos. 107 and 108 of 2001 is assailed in these two Appeals by the State of Orissa, represented through the Fire Brigade Department, which was the opposite party in the aforesaid MJCs before the Tribunal. 2. On 22nd January, 2001 at about 8.00 a.m. while one Prasanta Kumar Bidyadhar was proceeding to Sonepur from Baunsuni in a 'Hero Honda' motor-cycle bearing registration number ORR 9426 with his wife and a minor son as pillion-riders, a 'Tata 407 Mini Truck' bearing registration number OIC 526 belonging to the Fire Brigade Department of the State of Orissa dashed against the said motor-cycle resulting grievous injuries on the persons of all the three. In spite of best medical care to Prasanta he succumbed. In the accident the right leg of his widow had fractured. 3. The two MJCs, as stated above, had been filed, one by the widow and minor child of deceased Prasanta, and the other by the widow alone, claiming compensation. It was stated that the deceased Prasanta was the owner of a TV and Radio Repairing shop styled as 'Pramod Electronics' earning Rs. 4000.00 a month. After receiving notice in the MJCs, the Appellant-opposite party appeared before the Tribunal and filed a Written statement taking the stand that at the time the accident occurred, the Fire Brigade involved in the accident was proceeding to a place where fire had broken out ringing its bell throughout on the road, but then the deceased having lost control over his motor-cycle of his own dashed against the Fire Brigade for which the accident and death occurred. The Appellant-opposite party being not at fault it was not liable to pay any compensation. 4. The Tribunal heard both the MJCs analogously. It framed four issues for deciding the cases. In course of hearing before the Tribunal while the widow of Prasanta got herself examined as the sole witness besides exhibiting several documents, the Appellant-opposite party got two witnesses examined on its behalf and exhibited two documents. After threadbare discussion of the evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the Fire Brigade-in question though had taken all reasonable care to avoid the accident in spite of that the accident did occur. After threadbare discussion of the evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the Fire Brigade-in question though had taken all reasonable care to avoid the accident in spite of that the accident did occur. However, under the 'No Fault Liability' provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, i.e. Section 140, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,900.00 in MJC No. 107 of 2001 and Rs. 25,000.00 in MJC No. 108 of 2001 with a consolidated cost of Rs. 400.00 and directed the said amounts to be paid by the Appellant-Petitioner within two months, failing which it would pay interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the MJCs, i.e. 23-11-2001. 5. Learned Addl.Government Advocate took this Court through the evidence available on record challenging the impugned judgment and contended that the Tribunal has acted illegally and with material irregularity in awarding the compensation amounts in view of the fact that the driver of the Fire Brigade was driving the vehicle cautiously and no laches could be attributed to him. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Petitioners on the other hand submitted that the aforesaid plea was not available to be raised by the Appellant-opposite party. According to him, the accident occurred admittedly by the vehicle belonging to Fire Brigade and its involvement could not be ruled out. As such the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation amounts. 6. This Court after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perusing the impugned judgment and all the materials available on record including a report of MVI finds that the Tribunal has rightly held that the Fire Brigade was not at fault. Rightly also it has held that the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, i.e. 'No Fault Liability' would apply to the cases. 7. While disposing of M.A. No. 531 of 2001 (Smt.Sukumari Bewa v. OSRTC & Anr) decided on 23rd October, 2008, while dealing with 'No-Fault Liability' provision as per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court had held: Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the liability to pay compensation in certain cases under the provision of 'no-fault liability'. It stipulates that where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 140 which stipulates that for entitlement of any compensation under Sub-section (1) the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, negligence or default of the owner or any other person. Law is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide claim arising out of negligence in the use of motor vehicles. Negligence is only one of the premises of the cause of action for making a claim for compensation in respect of accident arising out of the use of motor vehicles. There are also other premises for such cause of action. In the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others the Supreme Court also held that where deceased pedestrian was knocked down by a jeep, even though the driver was not negligent in causing the accident the claim for compensation was sustainable. Thus law is no more res integra that "no-fault liability" envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is distinguishable from the rule of strict liability. In the case at hand, a youngman who was the sole bread-earner of the family met with an accidental death which led his young wife turn to be a widow with burden of a baby son to be reared up. The widow also sustained grievous injuries including fracture of her leg. This Court, therefore, refrains from interfering with the impugned Judgment. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court waives the direction of the Tribunal as to payment of default interest on the compensation amounts. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned judgment this Court disposes of both the MAC As and directs that the statutory deposits made before this Court by the Appellant be returned to it with interest accrued thereon. Appeal disposed of.