UNION OF INDIA Vs. RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the award of the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 13 -10 -82.

(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that on 3rd June, 1979 at about 930 A.M. claimant's truck RJQ 9681 was standing outside his godown in village Fidusar on Jodhpur Jaisalmer Road. At that time, truck No. 281/74F 1010 alongwith trailer No. 7552490H came with an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner from Jodhpur side and struck against the truck of the claimant and as a result of this the truck of the claimant was damaged. On account of the accident the excel, shaft and back side body of the the truck was seriously damaged. Three tyres of the truck were also damages. Chesis also got little bend. Claimant suffered hige and he got his transport repaired for that he had to pay a sum of Rs. 9171 60 The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 5600/ - for period 3rd June, 79 to 28th July, 1979 when the truck remains unserviceble for a period of 56 days. The daily income by the truck was Rs. 100/ - therefore, a sum of Rs. 5600/ - was claimed for loss of income. Thus Rs. 14,771/ - was claimed as damages. The truck was driven by the driver Ram Kripal Singh, who was in the service of non -claimant No. 2. The learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur after considering over the matter, came to the conclusion that non -claimant driver drove the truck in rash and negligent manner and caused damages to the truck of the claimant. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the damages to the extent of money spent by him for repairing the truck. On this head the amount of compensation was quantified to the extent of Rs. 9,234/ - which was caused on account of the accident. The truck remained idle for a month and 26 days, therefore, the learned Judge, awarded Rs. 1700/ - for loss of business to the claimant on account of truck being remained idle. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 10,934/ - was awarded as a compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realisation.

(3.) I have heard both the learned Counsel at length. Mr. Sisodia, learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously urged that the accident took place by the military truck of the appellant in discharge of sovereign function, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation against the appellant. This application of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in somewhat identical situation their lordships of Supreme Court have not accepted the argument in the matter of such accident. In the present situation, the plea of sovereign function cannot be accepted. Reference in this connection may be made to Pushpa Thakar v. Union of India 1984 ACJ 559. In view of this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the contention of the sovereign function cannot be accepted.