The driver of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident and ordered to pay compensation unless there is something more either under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the service conditions of the driver that imposes such liability.

( 1 ) THE aforesaid two appeals arise out of judgment and decree dated 16th April 1985, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mirzapur, for Rs. 55,000/- as against the U. P. State Road transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as u. P. S. R. T. C. ) and Rs. 5,000/- as against baikunth Nath Pandey (appellant in the other F. A. F. O. No. 487 of 1985 ). The claimant also filed cross-objection claiming enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,35,000/ -. Since both the appeals and the cross-objection arise out of the same judgment they are being disposed of by means of this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE claimant-respondents case is that on 11th May, 1982, at 5. 30 p. m. his son Surendra pratap Singh was waiting for a bus at the U. P. Roadways Bus Station at Mirzapur, where he was knocked down by a Roadways bus and he died thereafter. The said bus was driven by Baikunth nath Pandey, aforesaid. The deceased was waiting for the bus going towards Barkachha inside the Roadways compound when the said bus came in the compound and knocked him down. Deceased was the only earning son of the claimants family. His monthly income was said to be rs. 1,000/- and he was 22 years of age. His parents are: Raj Pratap Singh and Kamlesh Kunwar, father and mother, respectively, along with his sister and brothers. The deceased used to work on agriculture and carpet manufacturing. The claimants claimed Rs. 50,000 for mental shock, physical pain and suffering of the claimants and other members of the family, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of normal dispensation, amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE appellant of both the aforesaid appeals has filed separate written statement. U. P. S. R. T. C. denied the claim and further stated that no fatal accident took place near the Roadways Bus station by any U. P. S. R. T. C. bus. Further, the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and the number of the bus mentioned by the claimant, which struck down the deceased, did not belong to U. P. S. R. T. C. Baikunth Nath Pandey, appellant in the other appeal, in his written statement alleged that on the date and time of occurrence, he was not driving the roadways bus No. UTB 2378 and, in fact, there is no such number of any Roadways bus. The tribunal found that the accident in question did take place on 11th May, 1982, at 5. 30 p. m. in the campus of U. P. Roadways Bus Station, Mirzapur, by the U. P. Roadways bus driven by Baikunth nath Pandey; further, the accident took place on account of negligence and misconduct on the part of the driver; the parents are entitled to maintain the claim petition and it cannot be rejected on account of any misjoinder of parties; and finally, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- to the claimants, Rs. 55,000/- payable by the U. P. S. R. T. C. and Rs. 5,000/- by the driver baikunth Nath Pandey.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant (F. A. F. O. No. 527 of 1985) urged that there is no evidence to prove that the U. P. S. R. T. C. owns any bus bearing No. UTB 2378, which is said to have caused the accident in question and the compensation should not have been awarded as against the appellant. In this regard, one has always to keep in mind whether the actual accident took place on the said date, time and place or not, which led to the death of the deceased and secondly, whether the number of the bus recorded and relied by the claimant was true or not. Sometimes, it may be when the accident takes place, one is certain that the accident has taken place at the place and time and on the date by a particular vehicle, but may miss to correctly record the number of vehicle. If such number is wrongly recorded it would deprive the claimant of the benefit and entitlement under the Act. One may broadly record the accident whether by a bus, by a truck, by a jeep, by a car and if otherwise on evidence it is possible to conclude that the accident did take place with such veh