P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Appellant-M/s. Sojat Lime Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') to challenge judgment and award dated 9th of November, 1998, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat, Camp Jaitaran, District Pali (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). By the judgment and award impugned, learned Tribunal while adjudicating the claim of respondent-claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act, quantified and awarded them compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/- and fastened liability to pay the said compensation on the appellant, being owner of the offending vehicle, truck bearing No. RJT-973.
(2.) Succinctly stated, facts of the case that on fateful day of 17th of November 1994 at about 9:00 PM when deceased Munnaram was returning to his house at village Sisarwada, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali as pedestrian, offending vehicle, which was driven by its driver Mangilal rashly and negligently, hit Munnaram and eventually Munnaram was crushed to death on the spot. The accident was reported to police and after investigation charge sheet against Mangilal driver of the offending vehicle was filed before the court of competent jurisdiction under Section 279 and 304A I.P.C. as well as Section 134/177 of the Act. The respondent-claimants, being dependents and legal heirs of deceased Munnaram, filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that at the time of calamity/mishap, deceased was 25 years old and he was an Artisan engaged in chiseling of stones and masonry work besides undertaking agricultural activities. As per respondent-claimants, deceased was earning Rs. 2,400/- per month from masonry work and was also earning Rs. 20,000/- per annum from agriculture. In substance, under various heads, amount of compensation was quantified to the tune of Rs. 10,64,000/-. Attributing negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle, the claimants also arrayed appellant as non-claimant for tortuous act of its employee (driver of vehicle) on the doctrine of vicarious liability.
(3.) The claim petition is contested and the averments contained in the claim petition were refuted by the appellant as well as driver of the offending vehicle. Initially, insurer was impleaded as party-respondent but subsequently it was deleted. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, settled following issues for determination:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...;