G.M. Mir, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu, dated January 18, 1978 5n Claim Petition No. 31 of 1973. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the extent of Rupees two lacks in favour of respondent on different counts. Aggrieved by this order, the Union of India as well as V.V. Pillai driver of Army Vehicle have come up in appeal. The facts of the case are very brief:
(2.) ON 30th April, 1974 at about 1 -30 P.M. the respondent Miss Savita Sharma alias Babli, was travelling in a tempo and was coming to Jammu proper from Gandhinagar. When the tempo reached Dogra Chowk, a Military truck No. ZD 59611 which was being driven by appellant No, 2 rashly and negligently dashed against the tempo resulting in injuries to Miss Savita and some others in the tempo. The respondent received serious injuries in her leg, was removed to hospital in Jammu, but on medical advice was later removed to Sardar Jang Hospital, Delhi where on 5th of May, 1973 her right leg from knee downwards was: amputated. She remained in the hospital for about a month and had to visit the hospital twice a week for about another month or so for purposes of training and proper utilization of the artificial leg that was made for her. She was accompanied to Delhi by her brother and two other persons from her house -hold. Her father Atma Ram being a poor man had to borrow money from several persons to meet the expenses on medical treatment of his daughter and also for maintaining her in and outside the hospital at Delhi for a considerable time. In the petition Savita Sharma claims an amount of Rupees two lakhs as compensation and she also gives a break up of this amount on different counts as follows: i) for pain and agony: ... Rs. 40,000.00 ii) for medical expenses: ... Rs. 10,000.00 iii) for past and future enjoyment of life: ... Rs. 75,000.00 iv) for permanent disablement and disfigurement: ... Rs. 75,000.00 The appellants contested her claim before the Claims Tribunal on the grounds, firstly that the accident took place not on account of any rash and negligent act performed by appellant No. 2 but the tempo driver was solely and wholly responsible for the accident; secondly if at all it was found that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent act of the appellant No. 2, the act was committed during the performance of the statutory duty In exercise of sovereign powers, and thirdly therefore the respondent was not entitled to any damages or compensation. Originally the respondent had impleaded on non -applicants, besides the two appellants before us, the owner and the driver of the tempo as also the Insurance company with whom the tempo in question had been insured. These three parties were deleted from the array of non -applicants by an order of the Tribunal dated 12 -2 -1976. No revision or appeal was filed against that order nor the grounds of appeal before us disclose any grievance on the part of the appellants in. this behalf. It was on 1 -3 -1976 that the Claims Tribunal formulated the following issues in the matter: i) Whether the accident was caused on 30th April, 1973 due to the rash and negligent act of non -applicant No. 2? O.P. Applicant ii) Is non -applicant No. 1 vicariously liable for the act of the non -applicant No. 2? O.P. Applicant iii) Is the applicant entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - as compensation on account of the alleged accident and If so from which of the non -applicants? O.P. Applicant iv) If issue No. (i) is proved whether non -applicant No. 2 was performing the Military duty of bringing the Jawans from the Railway Station. If so, what is its effect on the application? O.P. non -applicants v) Relief. O.P. Applicant. As the onus to prove the main and factual issues was on the respondent, a number of witnesses were examined on her behalf. They were Amarchand Sharma, Suresh Sharma, Kailash Chander Dr. Pachananda, Salim Massih, G.D. Sharma, Khem Chand Sharma, Abdul Aziz constable, Puran Singh constable and Krishen Chand Sharma, Dr. K.C. Gupta was examined on commission.
(3.) ON the other hand appellant No. 1 produced and examined Lt. V.S. Negi and appellant No. 2 examined himself as his own witness.;