Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
PREM CHAND PANDIT, H.R. SODHI, GURDEV SINGH, D.K. MAHAJAN, BALRAJ TULI, JJ.
Bakshi Amrik Singh — Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India (UOI) — Respondent
F.A.O. No. 31 of 1969
Decided on : 10-10-1972
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 110-A - LIABILITY OF UNION OF INDIA FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A SEPOY EMPLOYED IN THE MILITARY POLICE TO A PRIVATE CITIZEN BY RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ARMY VEHICLE IN WHICH HE WAS PROCEEDING TO CHECK MILITARY PERSONNEL ON DUTY - WHETHER UNION OF INDIA IS LIABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident because of the rash and negligent driving of the Military truck No. SL 8085 in Ambala Cantonment by Sepoy Man Singh, who was detailed on duty to check military personnel on duty for the whole day. He claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act from the Union of India (UOI), who, besides denying the allegation of rash and negligent driving against the said sepoy Man Singh, claimed immunity on the plea that the driver was acting in discharge of the Sovereign functions of the Union of India (UOI) and no action for torts thus lay against the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Union of India (UOI) cannot be held liable for injuries sustained by a person as a result of rash and negligent driving of Army vehicle by a member of the Military Police, who in discharge of the duty entrusted to him was proceeding to check the military personnel on duty.
Issues: Whether the Union of India (UOI) is liable for injury caused by a sepoy employed in the military Police to a private citizen by rash and negligent driving of the army vehicle in which he was proceeding to check military personnel on duty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its servants or agents which are not proved to have been committed in the exercise of its sovereign functions or in exercise of the sovereign powers delegated to such public servants. 2. The mere fact that the act complained of was committed by a public servant in course of his employment is not enough to absolve the Government of the liability for damages for injury caused by such act. 3. When the State pleads immunity against claim for damages resulting from injury caused by negligent act of its servants, the area of employment referable to sovereign powers must be strictly determined. Before such a plea is upheld, the Court must always find that the impugned act was committed in the course of an under-taking or an employment which is referable to the exercise of the delegated sovereign powers. 4. There is a real and marked distinction between the sovereign functions of the Government and those which are not sovereign, and some of the functions that fall in the latter category are those connected with trade, commerce, business and industrial under takings. 5. Where the employment in the course of which the tortious act is committed is such in which even a private individual can engage, it cannot be considered to be a sovereign act be an act committed in the course of delegated sovereign functions of the State. 6. The fact that the vehicle, which is involved in an accident, is owned by the Government and driven by its servant does not render the Government immune from liability for its rash and negligent driving. It must further be proved that at the time the accident occurred, the person driving the vehicle was acting in discharge of the sovereign function of the State, or such delegated authority. 7. Though maintenance of Army is a sovereign function of Union of India (UOI), it does not follow that the Union is immune from all liability for any tortious act committed by army personnel. 8. In determining whether the claim of immunity should or should not be allowed, the nature of the act, the transaction in the course of which it is committed, the nature of the employment of the person committing it and the occasion for it, have all to be considered.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
ORDER
P.C. Pandit, J.
On 14th May, 1967, at about 2.30 p.m., a military truck No. SL 8085, which was driven by Sepoy Man Singh on the Mall Road in Ambala Cantt., was involved in an accident with a car, of which one of the occupants was Amrik Singh. As a result of this accident, Amrik Singh received a number of injuries and became unconscious. He was removed to the military hospital in an ambulance car. From there, he was discharged on the next day for being treated by a civil doctor. It is said that, thereafter, he remained under treatment for about two months. Subsequently, Amrik Singh filed a petition claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- against the Union of India (UOI). He also impleaded Sepoy Man Singh, but, later on, gave up his claim against him. According to Amrik Singh, the incident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of Sepoy Man Singh.
2. The claim was contested by the Union of India (UOI), who denied all the allegations made against them and pleaded that there was no fault on the part of the driver Sepoy Man Singh. It was also averred that since the driver was acting in the exercise of the sovereign powers of the Union Government at the time of the accident, no action could be taken against the Government and, therefore, there was no liability of the Union of India (UOI) for any compensation.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which was trying the claim-petition filed by Amrik Singh:
1. Whether the accident took place due to the negligence of Sepoy Man Singh, driver of the Military Truck No. SL 8085?
2. Whether the applicant is entitled to any compensation and if so to what amount?
3. Whether Sepoy Man Singh, driver of the truck in question was acting in the exercise of the sovereign powers of the Union Government at the time of the accident and if so whether the Government of India is not liable for his negligence?
4. After discussing the entire evidence produced in the case by both the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Amrik Singh had suffered injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Sepoy Man Singh and there was no negligence on the part ot the driver of the car in which Amrik Singh was sitting. On issue No. 3, however, the finding of the Tribunal was that Sepoy Man Singh was engaged in military duty in checking military personnel on duty and, therefore, he was acting in the exercise of the sovereign powers of the Union Government at the time of the accident. Under these circumstances, according to the Tribunal, no action could lie against the Union of India (UOI) for the tortious acts of their driver Sepoy Man Singh. In view of the finding on issue No. 3, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that issue No. 2 had become redundant and as such, no finding was necessary thereon. Since no compensation had been claimed by Amrik Singh against Sepoy Man Singh and the Union of India (UOI) could not be held liable for his tortious acts, the applicant, according to the Tribunal, was not entitled to any relief. As a result, the claim application was dismissed, but the parties were left to bear their own costs. Against this decision, the present appeal has been filed by Amrik Singh.
5. The only contention raised before me by the learned Counsel was regarding the finding given by the Tribunal on issue No. 3. Learned Counsel at the outset tried to argue that the evidence led by the Union of India (UOI) did not show that Sepoy Man Singh at the time of accident was on official duty. He was according to the learned Counsel, only asked to carry the military personnel to Nigar Cinema, which he did and then returned to the Unit. There was, so argued the learned Counsel, nothing on the record to show that the duty which was being performed by Sepoy Man Singh was in fact in the exercise of the sovereign powers of the State.
6. After going through the evidence of Lieutenant Vasdeva, Sepoy
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
