The Union of India is not liable for damages for the negligence of its military driver in causing the death of the plaintiffs' father as the act was done in exercise of its sovereign powers.

Mehar Singh, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Union of India, defendant, from the decree, dated 24-7-1953, of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Delhi. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons and No. 4 is the daughter of Khushial Singh deceased and defendant No. 3 is his widow. The plaintiffs brought a suit to recover an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as damages on account of the death of their father resulting from defendant No. 2 (Sohan Chand) a driver of the Military Department of defendant No. 1 (Union of India), knocking him down and running over him when he was riding his cycle. The plaintiffs alleged that it was the rash and negligent act of defendant No. 2 in driving the military vehicle in such a manner as to cause the accident that resulted in the death of their father. The accident took place, at about 9. 30 a. m., on 27-9-1949. The suit was permitted to be brought in forma pauperis. It was mainly contested by defendant No. 1 and a number of defences were taken, among them being that defendant No. 1 (Union of India) is not liable to damages for any act of its servant done in pursuance to the exercise of the sovereign powers of this defendant.

2. The learned trial Judge has found against defendant No. 1 and granted a decree in the amount of Its. 30,000/-, with proportionate costs to the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3.

3. In this appeal no other question is raised, not even as to the quantum of the damages allowed, except the one as regards the liability of the Union of India for damages for the act of defendant No. 2, its driver in the Military Department, in running over the father of the plaintiffs and husband of defendant No. 3 and causing his death.

4. It is stated in para No. 8 of the plaint that as defendant No. 2 was on duty and was driving the military truck during the course of his employment, defendant No. 1 is liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiffs. In its written statement defendant No. 1 pleads that it is not liable for the tort committed by its driver defendant No. 2 and accepts that on the particular morning defendant No. 2 was driving the military vehicle from the Town Hall, Delhi, towards Lahori Gate. When the vehicle was just approaching Novelty Cinema, the accident took place. Talwar Sharma D. W. 1, a military engineer, was travelling on the truck at that time and he has deposed that the truck had brought meals from the Cantonment and it was going about distributing the same where military personnel were working. It is obvious from this material that a truck of the Military Department of defendant No. 1 was driven by defendant No. 2, its employee, and that truck was used for distribution of meals to military personnel, and when it was being thus used that the accident took place resulting in the death of the father of the plaintiffs and husband of defendant No. 3. The learned trial Judge, while appreciating that defendant No. 1 is not liable for the tort of its servants when the act is done in exercise of its sovereign power came to the conclusion that distribution of meals for the employees of the Government could hardly be said to be an act done in exercise of any sovereign power. So the learned trial Judge repelled the one contention on behalf of defendant No. I, that is now the main contention on its behalf, and decreed the suit

5. The learned counsel for defendant No. 1 takes the same position in this respect as was done on behalf of this defendant in the trial Court and urges that there is no cause of action against that defendant. The reply of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 is that the act of the military driver in running over the father of the plaintiffs and causing his death cannot be said to have been occasioned by him when he was doing work which may be described as something that was done in exercise of sovereign powers of defendant No. 1. He relies, in this behalf, on the P. and O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secy, of State for Jndia, 5 Bom HCR Append