The State is liable for the tortious acts committed by its employees in the course of their employment, and damages can be awarded under the Fatal Accidents Act even if no immediate pecuniary loss is proved, considering the expectancy of pecuniary advantage from the deceased.

1. This is a plaintiffs appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the senior Subordinate Judge, Ambaia who on 25.7.1960 dismissed the plaintiffs suit praying for the award of Rs. 10,000/- as damages against the defendants respondents 1 to 3 because of the fatal accident caused by the collision of two vehicles in which the plaintiffs son Ranjit Singh aged about nine years died.

2. The case of the plaintiff, who is the mother of the deceased boy and filed the suit in forma pauperis, is that on 4.8.1957 Police lorry No. PNJ-3387, owned by the State of Punjab defendant respondent No. 1 and driven by constable Sher Singh No. 3278 defendant respondent 3 at about 3.30 P.M. came at a fast speed from the Arya High School side in Ambala City and was just near the crossing when a Punjab Roadways bus No. PNE-4678, owned by the same defendant respondent, coming from the bus stand and driven at a terrific speed by Iqbal Singh defendant respondent No 2, collided against the back side of the Police lorry as a result whereof the latter turned turtle causing the death of Ranjit Singh who was grazing cattle nearby.

3. Hari Singh defendant No. 4, father of the accused, has been arrayed as a defendant, but the suit is, obviously, for his benefit as well. The State of Punjab is the principal defendant being the owner of both the vehicles involved in the accident and also the employer of defendants 2 and 3, who were driving the vehicles at the time of the accident. It has been pleaded in the plaint that defendants 2 and 3 are personally liable as well, as it was owing to their rash and negligent acts in the discharge of their official duties that the death of Ranjit Singh took place. The plaintiff served a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on defendants 1 and 3, but Iqbal Singh, driver of the Punjab Roadways bus, refused service of the notice.

4. The State of Punjab defendant respondent raised several objections in its written statement including some preliminary ones. It denied its responsibility for the tortious acts, if any, of its employees and that there was any negligence on the part of defendants 2 and 3. It also pleaded that even these defendants were not liable for damages.

5. Iqbal Singh defendant No. 2 filed the written statement denving his liability, whereas proceedings were ex-parte against Sher Singh defendant No. 3 in as. much as he filed no return, though he made a statement before issues and also appeared as a witness. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether on 4th August, 1957, the Police lorry No. 3387-PNJ driven by Sher Siugh defendant No. 3 collided with Punjab Roadways bus No. 4678-PNE driven by Iqbal Singh, defendant No. 2 on account of rash and negligent driving by both or any of them as a result of which the plaintiffs son Ranjit Singh received injuries and died instantaneously on the spot at the Arya High School Chowk Ambala City ?

2. Whether the Punjab State is responsible for the tortious acts of its employees, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 ?

3. Whether the Fatal Accidents Act applies to this case ?

4. Relief.

Iqbal Singh, driver of the Punjab Roadways bus No. PNE-4678, was challaned as well in a criminal Court but ultimately acquitted. The trial Court found under issue No. 1 that there was no evidence to fix liability on any particular driver out of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and was of the opinion that in the absence of a specific finding being given as to which of the two was really proved to be guilty of rash and negligent driving, the suit could not be decreed. It did not, as a matter of fact, hold that there was no rash or negligent act on the part of defendants 2 or 3 and was rather of the view that either of them was guilty of negligence or may be both. As regards issue No. 2, relying on a case reported as State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1954 Pat 513 it held that the State was not liable for the tortious acts committed by it employees an