Pushpa Abbi and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

M.R. Sharma, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 25th of July, 1966, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Punjab, Chandigarh.

Brigadier K. K. Rao, Director E.M.E. Headquarters, Western Command, Ambala Cantt, was driving a jeep while Major Inderjit Abbi was traveling with him. Brigadier Rao struck the jeep in the rear of a military truck parked on the road near Ambala railway station. As a result of this accident Major Abbi received injuries which resulted in his instantaneous death. The claim petition was filed by Mrs. Pushpa Abbi on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that Brigadier Rao was driving the jeep in the course of his official duty and the Union of India was not liable to pay any damages. The learned Tribunal also noticed some pensionary benefits which the Appellant and her children were entitled to get because of the death of Major Abbi and observed that in view of these benefits admissible under the service conditions of Major Abbi the Appellant and her children cannot get double benefit under the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant and her children have filed this appeal.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants has read over to me the statement given by Brigadier K.K. Rao, in which he has stated that he had proceeded to the railway station with Major Abbi in order to give him secret instructions. It is, however, admitted by this witness, that he was at Sirhind Club and Major Abbi was also present, there. Sirhind Glub covers a vast area and in normal circumstances the instructions, if any, could have been imparted to Major Abbi in any secluded corner of the club. I am of the view that Major Rao has given this statement in order to exonerate the Union of India of any liability. In my considered opinion, the Respondents have failed to prove that the jeep was driven by Brigadier Rao in connection with any of his official duties. In this view of the matter, Union of India would be vicariously responsible for paying the damages to the Appellants. Even otherwise Brigadier Rao himself was impleaded as a Respondent to the petition filed before the learned Tribunal. When an accident occurs due to the negligence of any employee of the Union of India, even if the Union of India cannot beheld liable because its servant was performing duties in connection with the sovereign functions of the Union then the employee himself would be liable to pay damages. The Tribunal should in any case have determined the liability of Brigadier Rao.

The learned Tribunal was also in error in non-suiting the Appellants that they were entitled to some pensionary benefits under the service conditions of late Major Abbi. Pension and pensionary benefits are fixed under the rules regardless the actual loss suffered by the heirs of a deceased employee. The liability under the law of torts is of a different nature. Under this provision of law tortfeasor''s are liable to pay damages to the extent of the actual loss suffered by the heirs of the deceased. Now the pensionary benefits payable to the children come to Rs. 360/- per annum upto the age of 5 years and Rs. 840/- per annum thereafter. It is a matter of common knowledge that a child even of the age of 5 years cannot be maintained and educated on a petty sum of Rs. 70/- only. With the passage of time the emoluments of late Major Abbi would have substantially increased and it is reasonable to assume that he would have spent much more on the education of his children. The Appellants have suffered the loss of that amount which late Major Abbi would have spent upon their upbringing. The quantum of this loss has to be ascertained and the damages have to be paid to the Appellants on that basis. Of course, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to take into consideration the Pensionary benefits admissible to the Appellants at the time of assessing of the amount actually payable to them. There appears to be no warrant for holding that because the Appellants would be getting some pension they would be disentitled to claim damages under the Motor Vehicles Act.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this appeal and remand this case to the learned Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Appellants shall have their costs..