The negligence of a servant acting within the scope of his employment is imputed to his master, making the master liable for the consequences of the servant's negligence.

Muni Lal Verma, J.

1. The material facts which gave rise to this appeal and F.A.O. No. 171 of 1968 may be briefly stated as under :

2. Sudhir Kumar, aged about 11 years, son of the appellants was proceeding on a cycle and he was driving it putting his feet on the paddles by crossing one of his legs through its frame, on April 17, 1966, at about 4 p.m. on the road coming from the side of the lake and falling between sectors 18 and 19 at Chandigarh. Krishana Padda Sen Chowdhary accompanied by his friend M. Biswas was then proceeding on the foot path towards the lake. Military truck No. RD. 15198 (hereinafter called the truck) appeared there from the side of the lake. It was driven by Chander Singh, the Sepoy. When he (Chander Singh) was overtaking Sudhir Kumar, the truck hit against his (Sudhir Kumars) cycle, as a result of which the cycle and Sudhir Kumar fell on the road and he (Sudhir Kumar) died at the spot. Thereafter, the truck struck against the pavement (footpath) on its extreme right and hit M. Biswas, who too dropped on the ground and died at the spot. The truck was stopped thereafter. Krishana Padda Sen Chowdhary succeeded in saving himself and he sent information about the accident on telephone to the Air force Police. The local Police also reached the spot and he reported the accident to it. S.D. Joshi is the father and Mrs. Kanta Joshi is the mother of Sudhir Kumar and they claimed Rs. 20,000/- by moving application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Tribunal) from the Union of India, averring that the accident resulting in the death of Sudhir Kumar had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck Chander Singh who was acting in the course of his employment under the Union of India at the time of accident. Their claim was resisted solely on the ground that the accident, referred to above, had taken place due to faulty driving of the cycle by Sudhir Kumar and it was he who had dashed into the rear of the truck. Another plea was latter raised by amending the written statement that Chander Singh while driving the truck was performing an act of the Sovereign at the time of accident and, therefore, the Union of India was not liable for damages. Henee, the case was tried by the Tribunal on the following issues;

1. Was the accident due to any negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved ?

2. What is quantum of compensation due, if any, and from whom ?

3. Relief.

4. Whether the vehicle in question was performing the act of the sovereign and if so, to what effect ?

The Tribunal decided issue No. 4 in the negative. It held under issue No. 1 that the accident had taken place primarily due to negligent and rash driving of the truck by Chander Singh, though Sudhir Kumar had also contributed to it and that the negligence of Chander Singh was 75 per cent while negligence on the part of Sudhir Kumar was 25 per cent. Assessing the compensation at Rs. 4,000/-, the Tribunal directed the Union of India to pay Rs 3,000/- to S.D. Joshi and Mrs. Kanta Joshi. Dissatisfied with the said result, S.D. Joshi and Mrs. Kanta Joshi have come to this Court in this appeal.

3 The Union of India too impeached the award rendered by the Tribunal in F.A.O. 171 of 1968. Since both these appeals are against one award, the same being disposed of by one judgment.

4. The facts that the accident resulting in the death of Sudhir Kumar had taken place, that Chander Singh was then driving the truck in the course of his employment under the Union of India; and that Sudhir Kumar was aged about eleven years when he died, are admitted. Assailing the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. G. C. Garg. learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the accident was solely due to negligent driving of the truck by Chander Singh and that the compensation amount assessed by the Tribunal was inadequate. On the other hand. Mr. S. P. Jain, learned counsel appea