- (1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, facts of F.A.O. (MVA) No. 100 of 2008 have been taken into consideration. Bread earner of claimants in F.A.O. No. 100 of 2008 died in an accident of vehicle No. HP 08-0755, which took place on 21.5.2004 at about 6 p.m. at Bathal in Tehsil Chopal. The vehicle was owned by Ishwar Singh, respondent No. 2, and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3. The deceased was a labourer in the employment of appellant State (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant' for convenience sake). The work on Fedaz-Dhawas Road was going on and labourers including the deceased were deputed to work there. The labourers were taken to the spot in the morning in the ill-fated truck owned by respondent No. 2. It was hired by the appellant. The labourers engaged by the appellant including deceased were deputed for the purpose of metalling and levelling of the road. According to the averments contained in the claim petition, the workmen were on their way back in the vehicle in question hired by the appellant. When the vehicle reached near Bathal, it met with an accident as the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It fell down from the road. Twenty-nine persons died on the spot. Driver and cleaner of the vehicle also died on the spot. Appellant used to bring the labourers to the place of work site in the morning with a view to complete the work within one week, otherwise as per practice the labourers of Gumma section used to work only within Gumma area and for Dhawas area there were separate labourers. However, during the month of May 2004, labourers including deceased were engaged specially to complete the metalling work within the stipulated period and special arrangement was made by appellant with respondent No. 2 to bring the labourers from Gumma to the site of work in the morning and in the evening they used to drop all the labourers at their respective native villages on roadside.
(2.) The appellant filed reply to the claim petition. According to the preliminary objections taken by appellant, the vehicle in question neither belonged to it nor was the same hired by it for carrying labourers to and fro journey from the site of work. All the labourers boarded the ill-fated vehicle, which met with an accident, voluntarily in order to avoid payment of fare. According to appellant, truck was not hired by it to transport the labourers. The truck was neither owned nor was the driver or conductor permitted to carry the labourers in the truck.
(3.) According to the reply filed by owner of the ill-fated truck, i.e., respondent No. 2, the truck was hired by the Executive Engineer, HP PWD, Chopal from him. It is further stated in the reply that from 17.5.2000 till the time of accident, driver had been driving the vehicle as per instructions of the Executive Engineer, HP PWD, Chopal. The vehicle was hired for transportation of stone, grit, etc. for metalling the Nerwa-Fedaz Road. It is further stated that the owner had never authorised the HP PWD to carry labourers in the truck in question.;