(1.) We propose to decide both these appeals (FAO No. 100 of 1984, Smt. Krishna and others v. The Himachal Pradesh Public orks Department and others, and F.A.O. No. 101 of 1984, The Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department and another v. Smt. Krishna and others), by a common judgment since they arise out of the same accident between the same parties. The deceased was talking to a passenger of stationary bus at Theog Bus Stand on 16 10 1982. Truck No HPS -3890 of Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (hereafter HP PWD) came from Matiana side. It was being driven rashly and negligently and crushed the deceased. He was shifted to Civil Hospital, Theog, where he died soon thereafter. According to the claimants, the accident is attributable to the negligence of the driver of the truck, an employee of the HP. PWD At the time of accident, the deceased was 40 year old and was serving as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the Veterinary Hospital, Matiana Compensation to the extent of nine lakh has been claimed.
(2.) The petition has been opposed by respondents No.1 and 2. Taking place of the accident has been admitted, but it has been denied that it was the result of rash and negligent act of their driver. They have also taken the plea that they were not liable for the accident since Santosh Lal was deputed to drive the truck on the date of accident in the absence of driver Bhajan Lal, who was on leave. It was not being driven by Santosh Lal, but Roop Chand who was merely a Conductor with the truck of respondents No.1 and 2, HIM -4900. Since Roop Chand was driving the truck unauthorisedly, the accident did not take place during the duty of truck driver Santosh Lal. Roop Chand has denied that he was driving the truck in question. It is also stated that the claimants were not the legal representatives of the deceased.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues : "1. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives or dependants of deceased Sohan Lal ? OPP.