UNION OF INDIA Vs. S P AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitions 58/80 and 59/80 title S.P. Ahluatia v. Udhdm Singh and unother and Mrs. S.P.Ahluwalia v Udham Singh and another were disposed of by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its order dated 23rd of September 1980 allowing Rs.4000.00 Rs 6000.00 respectively as compensation for the injuries sustained by theaforesaid two persons who were involved in an accident with the jeep No. DLI-3864 belonging to the Union of India and driven by respondent No. 1 in the claim petition on the date of the incident, that is, on 18th of February 1972. The injuries sustained were simple in nature but the award was made after taking into consideration the status of Mr. S.P. Ahluwalia who was a Public Prose- cutor in the Delhi Administration and the anxiety be bad to undergo. In the case of Mrs. S.P. Ahiuwalia the Tribunal felt that on the date of the incident she was pregnant and the accident caused her a lot of agony and anxiety.

(2.) Before I deal with the matter must take notice of the preliminary objection raised by Shri Raman Kapur representing the Union of India. Mr. Raman Kapur maintains that before the filing of the claim petition the claimants ought to have served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the appellants. I am not in agreement with Mr. Raman Kapur. The reason being that Section 80 notice is only required when a regular suit is intended to be filed against the government or against any officer in respect of an act which is done by such public officer in the discharge of his official duties. 'The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act which is'a special law altogether different and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a civil court but is a Tribunal. It has created a special procedure and conferred a special jurisdiction on the Tribunal to deal with such types of claims as would strictly fall under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :

(3.) Now adverting to the appeal, I must point out that after going through the record and the order it is patently obvious that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is most proper and appropriate. There is nothing on the record to persuade me to come to a different conclusion. The accident in fact is the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver and the Union of India under whom the driver was serving is liable vic ously for the negligence of its driver. The compensation allowed in both the claims, in my view, is not excessive. Mr. Raman Kapur maintains that it is excessive as the value of the money has to be assessed in the light of its value it had in the year 1972 When the accident took place. I do not find myself in agreement for the reasons that the award was made in the year 1980 and the amount awarded was deposited somewhere in the month of March 1981 after this court on. 26th of February 1981 ordered it to be deposited in the court and to be paid to the respondents subject to their furnishing of security. Thus it would be seen that even though the claim had arisen in the year 1972 it was paid in the year 1981, ie., more than 8 years after the date of the accident and by that time the purchasing power of the money had been consi- derably reduced, I find no error of judgment either on the facts or on law in the order under appeal. The appeal is dismissed . The security furnished by the respondents in both the appeals shall stand discharged.