SURESH DEHRA Vs. P.K. TATYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of a common award dtd. 22/1/2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, whereby the claim petitions arising from the same accident were dismissed on the ground that the rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 an Army driver stood protected as a "sovereign function". Since the appeals arise out of the same accident and the same common award, they are being disposed of together by this judgment.

(2.) The brief facts, as emerge from the record, are that on 16/8/1996, the claimants, namely Kamal Dehra, Rajinder Kumar, Suresh Dehra, Harbans Singh and Mohinder Singh were travelling from Rajpura to Kurukshetra in a Maruti car bearing registration No. (PB-39-0955). When they reached near Village Khanpur Kolian on the G.T. Road, a military truck bearing registration No. (89-D-78182-P), owned by the Union of India and driven by respondent No.1 (P.K. Tatyal), came from the Pipli side in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking a bus, swerved onto the wrong side of the road and violently collided with the car. Due to the impact, all occupants of the car sustained multiple injuries. Arising out of the said accident, five separate claim petitions were instituted before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 each filed by the injured claimants seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the same occurrence.

(3.) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, while adjudicating all five claim petitions by a common award dtd. 22/1/2001, held that the accident of 16/8/1996 involving the Maruti car (PB-29-0955) and the military truck (89-D-78182-P) stood established and had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, P.K. Tatyal. This finding was based on FIR No.242 dtd. 16/8/1996, which detailed the manner of the occurrence and attributed fault to the military truck, the medico-legal reports and treatment documents showing injuries consistent with a frontal impact and the consistent, mutually corroborative statements of the injured claimants (PW3 to PW6), who had no motive to falsely implicate the Army driver. Having returned a clear finding of negligence against respondent No.1, the learned Tribunal nevertheless proceeded to hold that as the driver was a member of the armed forces and was stated to be on official duty at the time of the accident, his act fell within the ambit of sovereign functions. On this premise, the learned Tribunal concluded that the Union of India could not be held vicariously liable for the negligent act of its employee and accordingly, the claim petitions were not maintainable against the respondents. Further, the learned Tribunal took on record and acknowledged the injury reports of all the claimants, noting the fractures, head injury, multiple abrasions and other trauma reflected in the medico-legal documents. The learned Tribunal did not doubt the genuineness of these medical records nor the fact that the claimants had suffered substantial bodily harm as a result of the collision. Moreover, the learned Tribunal reasoned that although the claimants would ordinarily have been entitled to compensation under various heads such as medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of income during treatment and loss of amenities, no compensation could be awarded because the accident had occurred in the course of the Army driver's alleged discharge of sovereign functions. On this basis, the learned Tribunal held that fastening liability on the Union of India was impermissible, rendering any assessment of compensation unnecessary. Consequently, despite having found respondent No.1 negligent, the learned Tribunal abstained from assessing compensation under any statutory or conventional head and dismissed all the petitions solely on the ground that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the claims. Resultantly, no liability was fastened upon either the driver or the Union of India.