Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This civil misc. appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') has been filed by the State of Rajasthan (appellant) against the judgment and award dated 25.7.1995 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banner in Claim Case No. 29 of 1993 by which he has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,36,000 as compensation to the claimants, respondent Nos. 1 to 4, on account of death of Khartha Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased').
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances: (i) That claimants, respondent Nos. 1 to 4, filed the claim petition on 20.2.1993 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), claiming a sum of Rs. 9,42,000 as compensation on account of death of the deceased in the accident alleging, inter alia, that on 20.8.1992 in the evening, the deceased and his brother Kushla Ram, AW 2, were going on bicycle after doing the job of mason and at that time a jeep No. RJ 04-C 0223 came from opposite direction which was being driven by Achla Ram, respondent No. 5 and belonging to the Dist. Collector, Barmer and hit the bicycle as a result of which Khartha Ram died in the hospital. (ii) That the appellant filed reply to the claim petition and after filing reply, the learned Tribunal framed 4 issues. (iii) That the learned Tribunal after recording evidence and after hearing the parties, passed the award dated 25.7.1995 in the manner as stated above. (iv) Aggrieved from the judgment and award dated 25.7.1995, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
(3.) In this appeal, following submissions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant: (i) That at the time of accident the jeep in question was not being driven by Achla Ram, respondent No. 5 and no accident had taken place with the jeep in question and thus the findings on issue No. 1 are liable to be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the State Government is not liable for the tortious act committed by Achla Ram, respondent No. 5, as at the time of accident, the jeep was not being used for government work and thus the findings on issue No. 3 are liable to be quashed and set aside. (iii) The learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the findings on issue No. 2 and it has been submitted by him that the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,36,000 which was awarded by the Tribunal is excessive in nature and the same may be reduced accordingly.;