D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) THESE two F.A. Os Nos. 133 and 204 of 1972 are directed against a common award dated 25 -3 -1972 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, whereby it awarded a sum of Rs. 79,800/ - to the claimants before it as compensation. The said sum was made payable only by Respondents 1 and 3 before it, as the claim against Respondent No. 2 before it was dismissed.
(2.) F .A.O. No. 133 of 1972 has been filed by the claimants, who are six in number, while F.A.O. No. 204 of 1972 has been filed by all the Respondents before the Tribunal. Since a common question of law and facts is involved, both the appeals are sought to be disposed of by a common judgment. The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition stated briefly are that Mohan Lai, son of Parma Nand, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, on 14 -5 -1970 at about 7 -30 a.m., was proceeding on a scooter from the brick -kiln towards Chandigarh when a Shaktiman army truck No. TWD -45359 driven by Rameshwar Lal (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent driver) struck against the scooter of the deceased in the process of entering upon the main road from a side road. The deceased was dragged for some distance from the place his scooter was hit. It was alleged that the truck was being driven by Respondent driver rashly and negligently. The claimants claimed Rs. 3 lacs as compensation. It was averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 800/ - per month and the claimants were dependent on him.
(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal all the Respondents namely, Union of India, the Respondent driver and the Officer Commanding, 656 Coy ASC Ambala Cantt,, contested the claim. It was denied that the Respondent driver was at fault. It was claimed that the Union of India was not liable as the driver of the offending vehicle was on State duty and was performing the sovereign function of the State. It was further averred that the accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, who was alleged to be driving scooter without a driving license. The Respondents also contested the right of claimants to receive any compensation.;