JUDGMENT P.C. : Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Both these two appeals by the owner of the vehicle, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short the Act) arise out of the same motor accident and have been preferred against the common judgment and award dated 31.01.1991 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional District Judge, Dehradun (for short the Tribunal), Dehradun in Motor Accident claim Petition Nos. 72 of 1984, Mam Chand Gupta and others Vs. State and 73 of 1984, Anurag Gupta Vs. State and others, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. In Claim Petition No. 72 of 1984, Sri Man Chand Gupta Vs. State of U.P. whereby a compensation of Rs. 1,1/2 lac was awarded for accidental death of Brij Kumar Gupta in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 12% per annum as against the opposite parties. The amount paid under Section 92 of the Act was made adjustable towards compensation amount and in Claim Petition No. 73 of 1984, the injured-claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs. One lac along with interest @ 12% per annum for the injuries sustained by him in the accident as against the opposite parties as mentioned in the impugned order. 3. Relevant facts of the case are that on 22.11.1983, Brij Kumar Gupta (deceased) was coming from Vijay Park Dehradun on Scooter No. DIH 5910 and injured Anurag Gupta, nephew of the deceased was a pillion rider on the said scooter. At about 9 p.m. near Bindal Bridge Chakrota Road, a government jeep No. USK 7683 belonging to Divisional Forest Officer Bijnor and being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Laxman Singh hit the scooterists with the result Brij Kumar Gupta sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot, while Anurag Gupta suffered grievous injuries and he remained hospitalized from 22.11.1983 to 21.1.1984. The report of this accident was lodged with the Police at Cantt. Outpost Dehradun. Compensation worth Rs. Eight lacs had been claimed by the legal heirs of the deceased Brij Kumar Gupta, while injured claimant Anurag Gupta had claimed compensation of Rs. 4,35,000/- on different counts. 4. The opposite parties no. The report of this accident was lodged with the Police at Cantt. Outpost Dehradun. Compensation worth Rs. Eight lacs had been claimed by the legal heirs of the deceased Brij Kumar Gupta, while injured claimant Anurag Gupta had claimed compensation of Rs. 4,35,000/- on different counts. 4. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 State of U.P. and its driver contested the claim petitions and filed their joint written statement and asserted that the motor accident was not a result of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver, rather the accident took place due to breaking of brake pipe and tie rod of the vehicle on the road with the result the vehicle had gone out of control. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues in the case :- 1. Whether the alleged accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Jeep No. U.S.K.-7683 Laxman Singh? 2. Whether the alleged accident was caused as alleged in paragraph 25 of the written statement? 3. Whether the claimant (Anurag Gupta) suffered permanent disability in the accident? 4. To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled? 6. On 18.4.1990 both the parties gave a statement before the Tribunal that the vehicle no. US-7683 be treated as vehicle No. USK-7663 as having been involved in the accident. 7. Both the parties filed documentary evidence in the case and in oral evidence, the claimants examined P.W. 1 Dr. R.P. Singh, P.W. 2 Dr. B.S. Bisaria, P.W. 3R.P. Tiwari, P.W. 4 Dr. G.C. Dass, P.W. 5 Ramniwas Goel, P.W. 6 Ajay Kumar Bansal, P.W. 7 Vikram Luthara, P.W. 8 Indra Singh Chawla, P.W. 9 D.P. Jain, P.W. 10 Constable Musaddi Lal, P.W. 11 injured Anurag Gupta, claimant in Claim Petition No. 73 of 1984, P.W. 12 Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, P.W. 13 S.I. Ravindra Singh Toliya, P.W. 14 Magan Singh, P.W. 15 Raju (an eye witness of the accident), P.W. 16 Man Chand Gupta and P.W. 17 Y.W. Sharma, R.I. Technical. The Opposite Parties examined D.W. 1 Magan Singh, D.W. 2 Jagdish Prasad Ghildiyal, Clerk in the Forest Department, D.W. 3 Driver Laxman Singh and D.W. 4 Gunanand in oral evidence. The Opposite Parties examined D.W. 1 Magan Singh, D.W. 2 Jagdish Prasad Ghildiyal, Clerk in the Forest Department, D.W. 3 Driver Laxman Singh and D.W. 4 Gunanand in oral evidence. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and persuing the evidence came to the conclusion on Issue No. 1 that the motor accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep in question resulting into death of scooterist Brij Kumar Gupta and permanent disability to pillion rider-claimant Anurag Gupta. On Issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal held that the opposite parties could not prove that the accident did not occur due rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep in question and that the veracity of the paper nos. 37-C, 38-C and 44-C was doubtful on the basis of evidence on record. Accordingly, it was concluded that the accident did not occur in the manner as alleged in paragraph no. 25 of the written statement. On Issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal has held that the claimant Anurag Gupta suffered permanent disability due to injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,1/2 lac in the former case and compensation of Rs. One lac in the latter case as mentioned earlier. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the lower court record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants is not based on evidence on record, the compensation awarded is on the higher side and the finding on the point of rash and negligent driving is not supported by cogent evidence. It has been vehemently contended that the evidence led by the opposite parties showing the real cause of accident was not properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. 10. The main controversy for determination in these appeals is whether the appellant had led reliable and cogent evidence as alleged by them in paragraph no. 25 of the written statement. The stand taken by the State in its written statement is that the accident took place due to breaking of brake pipe and tie rod of the Jeep in question and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. 25 of the written statement. The stand taken by the State in its written statement is that the accident took place due to breaking of brake pipe and tie rod of the Jeep in question and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. Of course, it is for the claimants to establish that the accident took place in the manner as alleged by them, but at the same time, it the opposite party gives explanation for the cause and manner of accident, it is incumbent upon the appellant to have proved its contention. From the side of claimant, P.W. 11 Anurag Gupta, injured-claimant and P.W. 15 Raju, Thela puller are the eye witnesses of the accident, while from the side of appellant, D.W. 2 Jagdish Ghildiyal and D.W. 3 Laxman Singh, driver are the witnesses of factum of accident. 11. It is the definite case of the claimants that on 22.11.1983, the motor accident was caused a little before Bindal Bridge due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Jeep. At the time of accident, the scooterists stopped the scooter. The offending jeep first hit vegetable Thela puller Raju (P.W. 15) and thereafter hit the scooterists on wrong side with the result the driver of the scooter deceased Brij Kumar Gupta sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot, while injured Anurag Gupta, the pillion rider suffered grievous injuries resulting into permanent disability to him. P.W. 11 Anurag Gupta has stated on oath that the speed of the offending jeep was about 70-80 kilometre per hour and the driver was driving the Jeep negligently. The width of the road at the place of accident is about 70 ft. The jeep first hit the Theli owned by P.W. 15 Raju, who also received injuries in the accident. P.W. 15 Raju has fully supported the statement of P.W. 11 Anurag Gupta. According to the appellant, the main cause of accident was breaking of brake pipe, but both the aforesaid witnesses examined by the appellant, viz. D.W. 2 Jagdish Prasad Ghildiyal and D.W. 3 Laxman Singh, driver, no where said that the accident took place due to breaking of brake pipe. They have stated that the accident took place due to impairment of tyres of Jeep. The learned Tribunal has already discussed the entire evidence led by both the parties from page no. D.W. 2 Jagdish Prasad Ghildiyal and D.W. 3 Laxman Singh, driver, no where said that the accident took place due to breaking of brake pipe. They have stated that the accident took place due to impairment of tyres of Jeep. The learned Tribunal has already discussed the entire evidence led by both the parties from page no. 5 to page no. 14 of the impugned judgment on the point of rash and negligent driving. Naturally the driver of the Jeep D.W. 3 Laxman Singh was interested to save his skin from the liability of compensation. The learned Tribunal has observed at page 15 that the eye-witnesses of appellant D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 no where stated regarding failure of brakes or breaking of brake pipe. At page 16, it has been observed that the inspection report of the Jeep prepared by D.W. 1 Magan Singh paper nos. 44-C, 37-C and 38-C were not prepared at the spot but were prepared subsequently. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the entire evidence led by the parties in the impugned judgment and award. It may be added here that in the compensation cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, strict proof of fact is not required. The claimants are required to prima facie establish that the motor accident was the result of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending jeep. 12. Having considered the testimony of P.W. 11 Anurag Gupta, P.W. 15 Raju, D.W. 2 Jagdish Prasad and D.W. 3 Driver Laxman Singh coupled with the documentary evidence on record, I am of the view that the motor accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Jeep and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are fully based on proper appraisal of evidence on record and the findings on these three issues are upheld. Now the question remains whether the quantum of compensation is on the higher side or not? 13. Undoubtedly the motor accident took place on 22.11.1983 when the provisions of Old Motor Vehicles Act 1939 were prevailing. Deceased Brij Kumar Gupta was aged 46 years. The age of the deceased Brij Kumar Gupta is not disputed. Now the question remains whether the quantum of compensation is on the higher side or not? 13. Undoubtedly the motor accident took place on 22.11.1983 when the provisions of Old Motor Vehicles Act 1939 were prevailing. Deceased Brij Kumar Gupta was aged 46 years. The age of the deceased Brij Kumar Gupta is not disputed. The deceased left behind him widow and five children (four daughters and one son) out of whom four were minors at the time of accident. The deceased also left behind aged parents. According to the claimants the deceased was a businessman and a Government Contractor. He was earning about Rs. 2000/- per month. The appellant has not led any evidence to the contrary. It is settled principle that the amount of compensation should be just. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,1/2 lac in lumpsum. Indisputably the claimants have suffered loss of love and affection besides mental agony for the death of the deceased. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the age of the deceased, I am of the view that the compensation of Rs. 1,1/2 lac is just and fair for the death of the deceased Brij Kumar Gupta. 14. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded to injured Anurag Gupta is concerned, it is not disputed that he was a young man of 19 years and a student of Class XII at the time of accident. The injured has also filed vouchers of Rs. 30,000/- showing the expenses already incurred on his treatment. There is plethora of evidence on record to show that the future of the injured Anurag Gupta has become uncertain due to shortening of his leg and insertion of steel plate in the arm. It can be said that the injured has lost his future prospects on account of accidental disability sustained by him in young age. The nature of injuries, the period of hospitalization, the nature of operations etc. undergone by the injured, medical expenses incurred by him on his continuous treatment and considering the physical and mental sufferings undergone by the claimant-injured and loss of future prospects, I hold that the amount of Rs. One lac awarded in lumpsum by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation to injured Anurag Gupta. The findings on the point of quantum of compensation are also maintained. One lac awarded in lumpsum by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation to injured Anurag Gupta. The findings on the point of quantum of compensation are also maintained. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. 15. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has contended that the State cannot escape its vicarious liability for payment of compensation for the fault of its driver in the course of his employment. In support of his contention, he has referred to the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and other [1996 (1) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.)]. The Apex Court while dealing on the relevant point has observed that “Vicarious liability of State for payment of compensation to the heirs of deceased of motor accidents due to negligence of its employee – Test to determine the act “in the course of employment” – Authorised act being done in an unauthorised manner – Offending Government Jeep driven by a clerk under the authority of its driver on duty at the time of accident – Dispute revolving around the mode or manner of execution of authority of the master by the servant – Vehicle used for the business of the State and for official purpose – Accident took place due to negligent driving of clerk under the influence of liquor – Whether the State is liable for compensation where the authorised act was performed in an unauthorised manner within the course of employment – Yes.” This case law is fully applicable to the present appeals. 16. In the result, the appeals preferred by the State against the impugned judgment and award dated 31.1.1991 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition Nos. 72 of 1984 and 73 of 1984 are devoid of merit and must fail. 17. Both the appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment and award under appeal is upheld. 18. The amount in deposit with this Court, if any, be remitted to the learned Tribunal concerned for being paid to the claimants.