The Union of India is vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees, even if the accident occurs while the employee is performing a personal task with the permission of the department.

R.D. Shukla, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid Misc. Appeal Nos. 179, 181, 185, 194 and 199 of 1988. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 14.7.1988 of M.A.C.T., Mandsaur, passed in Claim Case Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 66 of 1987, whereby while awarding compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the death of Sapna, aged 5 years; Rs. 25,000/- for the death of Reshambai w/o Kanhaiya Lal and Rs. 50,000/- for the death of Kanhaiya Lal, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation with a direction that the same shall be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., M.P.S.R.T.C. and its driver Amol Das. The claim of M.P.S.R.T.C. vide Claim No. 66 of 1987 has been dismissed.

2. The brief history of the case is that on 20.10.1983, Kanhaiya Lal (deceased) who was an employee of the Narcotics Department was going in jeep No. MPU 1338 along with his wife and three minor daughters and one minor son and other persons, he was carrying dead body of his father in the jeep up to Ratlam.

There was a collision between jeep No. MPU 1338 and motor bus No. MBE 2560 on the highway near the village Daloda. Kanhaiya Lal, his wife Reshambai and minor daughter Sapna died due to severe injuries. The bus owned by M.P.S.R.T.C. was coming from opposite side and the same was plying between Mandsaur and Ujjain, which was driven by Amol Das. Babu Singh s/o Laxman was driver of the jeep of Narcotics Department owned by Government of India.

Daryaobai filed a Claim Case No. 63 of 1987 as a legal representative for the death of Sapna, who was her granddaughter and claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-; Sitabai, Jagdish and Premlata, all the three minor children through their guardian Daryaobai filed the Claim Case No. 64 of 1987 for the death of their mother Reshambai and claimed compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. Daryaobai, Sitabai, Jagdish and Premlala (Nos. 2 to 4 through their guardian Daryaobai) filed Claim Case No. 65 of 1987 for the death of Kanhaiya Lal and claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. M.P.S.R.T.C. filed Case No. 66 of 1987 seeking compensation of Rs. 2,000/-for the damages caused to the bus owned by claimant M.P.S.R.T.C.

According to the claimants in Claim Case Nos. 63, 64 and 65 of 1987, there was a collision between the jeep driven by Babu Singh and owned by Government of India and bus driven by Amol Das and owned by M.P.S.R.T.C. The jeep was thrown away and, therefore, the three persons sustained injuries and died immediately. The claimant in Claim Case No. 66 of 1987, on the other hand, filed a claim petition with the contention that the driver of jeep was negligent and dashed against the bus of the M.P.S.R.T.C. and caused damage to the bus, as claimed. Thus, the M.P.S.R.T.C. in its written statement filed in Claim Case Nos. 63, 64 and 65 of 1987 have asserted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motor jeep by Babu Singh.

As against it, respondent Babu Singh and Government of India pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. In the alternative, sovereign immunity was also claimed.

Learned Tribunal held that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident and thus the driver of M.P.S.R.T.C., Amol Das, also contributed to the accident. As such, the claim filed by M.P.S.R.T.C., i.e., No. 66 of 1987 was dismissed and respondent Nos. 1 and 2, M.P.S.R.T.C. and Amol Das, driver, were made jointly and severally liable for making payment of compensation of Rs. 90,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation of the same (bifurcation has already been shown in earlier paras).

M.A. Nos. 179, 181 and 185 of 1988 have been filed by claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation and M.A. No. 199 of 1988 has been filed by the M.P.S.R.T.C. challenging the award made in favour of the claimants and M.A. No. 194 of 1988 has been filed agai