M.R. Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 154 and 155 of 1975, and F.A.O. Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 34, 35,55, 56, 57 and 58 of 1975, as they all arise out of the same occurrence.
(2.) ON June 7, 1972, Rikhi Raj, overseer was driving tipper No. PUL -5436 belonging to the Public Works Department of the State of Punjab on the Ludhiana -Jagraon road, when it met with an accident resulting in the death of 4 workers, namely, Dial Singh, Gurnam Singh and 2 others, and injuries to 18 other workers, namely, Nachhattar Singh, Sohan Singh beldars and others. The next of kin of Dial Singh and Gurnam Singh, filed petitions for damages before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, who awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - to the next of kins of the two deceased in 2 separate petitions. Nachhattar Singh and Sohan Singh, the injured workers, were awarded Rs. 1,000/ - each for the injuries sustained by them. Apart from burdening the State of Punjab with the liability, the learned Tribunal also held that Nazar Singh driver and Rikhi Raj, overseer, who allegedly happened to be driving the tipper at that time, were jointly and severally responsible alongwith the State. The State of Punjab and Nazar Singh driver have both filed four first appeals each, Rikhi Raj, overseer has filed two revisions and two first appeals challenging his liability.
(3.) AT the stage of trial, in response to the allegations made in the petition, it was asserted on behalf of the State that Rikhi Raj, overseer was sitting beside the driver and the accident took place suddenly in order to avoid an accident with a car which was coming from the opposite side. It was further averred that the accident did not result out of the rash and negligent driving by the driver. Rikhi Raj, overseer set up the plea that he was not driving the tipper at the time when the accident took place. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:? 1. Whether the application for compensation is not maintainable against Respondent No. 3 ? If so, its effect ? 2. Whether the death of Dial Singh took place due to rash and negligent act of Respondent No. 2 ? 3. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to ? 4. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of Dayal Singh deceased ? Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the Respondents. On issue No. 3 compensation amounts were determined as indicated above and the claimants were held to be the next of kin of the two deceased persons.;