JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.4.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba in MAC Petition No. 46 of 2005, titled Maya Devi and Others vs. Executive Engineer, HPPWD and Others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,40,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award” for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. It appears that claimants-respondents No. 1 and 2, being the victims of a vehicular accident, filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per the break-ups, given in the claim petition. 3. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition. The Tribunal, from the pleadings of the parties framed following issues:- (i) Whether on 5.4.2005, at about 6.30 p.m. near Hutta Tehsil Salooni District Chamba, deceased Suresh Singh, the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners 2 and 3 died in vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.3, as alleged? OPP. (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OP Parties. (iii) Whether the offending vehicle was Tipper and deceased was never authorized to travel or sit in the said tipper, hence the respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay the compensation as alleged? OPR1. (iv) Whether the accident caused by respondent No. 3 after committing theft of said Tipper as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR1. (v) Relief. 4. The claimants examined three witnesses, namely, Maya Devi, claimant No.1 herself (PW1), Chanalu Ram (PW2) and Raja Ram (PW3). 5. Respondents have also examined three witnesses, namely, Kuldeep Chand (PW1) Dharmender Singh (PW2) and Smt. Renu, (PW3). 6. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimants have proved that Suresh Singh, husband of claimant No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3 became victim of vehicular accident, caused by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Nihal Singh and Kuldeep Kumar, while driving the offending vehicle carelessly, rashly and negligently. After assessing the compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,40,000/-. 7. 2 and 3, namely, Nihal Singh and Kuldeep Kumar, while driving the offending vehicle carelessly, rashly and negligently. After assessing the compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,40,000/-. 7. The State has questioned the same on the ground that Kuldeep Kumar has driven the vehicle unauthorizedly though he was an employee of appellant department and the Nihal Singh was only authorized driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal has discussed and thrashed out this aspect and held that the actual driver Nihal Singh was also negligent because he has not taken due care and caution while parking the vehicle. Respondent No. 3, who was helper, has also unauthorisidely driven the vehicle. The Tribunal has made the said discussion in para 17 of the impugned award and rightly arrived at the conclusion. It is apt to reproduce para 17 of the impugned award herein: “17. From the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clear that the vehicle was belonging to respondent no.1 i.e. Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Salooni Division and respondent No.2 Nihal Singh was the driver of the said vehicle. It is also proved on record that the said vehicle was stopped at place Hutta and respondent No. 3 Kuldeep Kumar without the permission of the driver started the vehicle and thereafter caused the accident causing the death of deceased Suresh Singh on the spot. Even the respondent No.3 Kuldeep Kumar has admitted that a criminal case is pending against him for the said accident. However, at the same time, Nihal Singh respondent No. 2 is equally liable for the act of Kuldeep Kumar. There is nothing on record which go to show that respondent No.2 Nihal Singh before parking the vehicle had taken proper care and caution. Petitioners have examined PW2 Chanalu Ram, the cleaner of the said vehicle, who in his cross-examination has clearly stated that the distance between the vehicle and the shop was hardly 5-6 feet and has further admitted that the department selects the place of parking of the vehicle. Even respondent Nihal Singh has not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his version that Kuldeep Kumar took the vehicle without his permission. RW-2 Chanalu has further stated that the keys of the vehicle was with the driver. Even respondent Nihal Singh has not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his version that Kuldeep Kumar took the vehicle without his permission. RW-2 Chanalu has further stated that the keys of the vehicle was with the driver. If the version of PW-2 Chanalu is accepted, it appears that the keys were with the driver, then it is not known as to how respondent No. 3 started the vehicle without keys when the keys were with the driver. If driver Nihal Singh had stopped the vehicle for taking cigarette and Bidi, as per his version, then it was his duty to park the vehicle properly and since he has failed to take proper care while parking the vehicle, I am of the firm opinion that both respondent No. 2 Nihal Singh and respondent No. 3 Kuldeep Kumar are liable for the accident and I hold that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of both respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in which Suresh Singh, the occupant of the vehicle died and accordingly issue no. 1 is decided in the affirmative, and issue No. 4 in the negative.” 8. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly decided issues No. 1 and 4. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that respondent Maya Devi is not legally wedded wife of the deceased. This question cannot be gone into the claim petition. The Tribunal has not fallen in error in passing the impugned award. 10. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly and legally made the impugned award. Consequently, the appeal merits to be dismissed. 11. The Registry is directed to release the amount, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account, after proper identification. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. Send down the record, forthwith.