PARWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Verma, J. Since both these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) arise out of the common judg ment and award dated 29-7-1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / III Additional District Judge, Nainital (for short the Tribunal) in Mo tor Accident Claim Petition No. 356 of 1995 Smt. Parwati Devi and others Vs State of U. P. and others, whereby the compensation of Rs. 50. 000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants and respondent Smt. Bhawani Devi. The compensation was. ordered to be pay able by the driver Kishan Lal. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have filed A. O. No. 103 of 2001 for enhance ment of compensation, while the driver of the vehicle has preferred A. O. No. 852 of 2001. The controversy to be deter mined in these two appeals are similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the appeals are being decided to gether by this common judgment.

(2.) DURING the pendency of these ap peals, Smt. Bhawani Devi, the mother of the deceased Pushkar Singh has died and her legal representatives, i. e. claim ants, are already on record, therefore, her name was ordered to be deleted from the array of respondent in both the ap peals.

(3.) THE driver of the Jeep has been arrayed as respondent O. P. No. 4 in the claim petition, who filed his written statement 36-Kha and contested the claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that on the fateful day the driver was on his official duty with departmental Jeep No. URN-8797 and after the Soil Conservation Officer left for Lucknow by train at Lalkuan, the de ceased and he both returned to Haldwani side. He also asserted that at Haldwani, he had to deliver one letter addressed to Nandan Singh Bisht, Tech nical Assistant, who used to reside in Mohalla Mukhani and then to park the. Jeep at Nainital Head Office as per di rections of his boss. Unfortunately, when the driver was performing his duty, the said accident occurred. He also stated that earlier also he used to park the ve hicle after leaving his Officer at Lalkuan railway station. Regarding the accident, he asserted that the accident occurred due to rains and as there was no wipers fitted in the screen of vehicle, hence due to mechanical fault, the accident hap pened. He also asserted that he had un dergone departmental inquiry and after having exonerated from the charges, he has been re-instated in the department. In the last, he has pleaded that since the answering opposite party was performing his official duty, therefore, com pensation; if any, is liable to be paid by the Department/state.