J.M.L.Sinha - (1.) (for self and for R. B. Misra, J.) :-This appeal is directed against an order dated _30th of July, 1973 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut.
(2.) THE fact leading to this appeal can briefly be stated as under : On 11th of November, 1970, at about 8 a. m. Sri Jaswant Singh Dhillan, age 50 years, a Transport Agent, died in an accident with mlilitary truck on the junction of Delhi-Baghpat Road and Meerut. Smt. Iqbal Kaur and Km. Gorinderjit Kaur, the widow and minor daughter respectively of Jaswant Singh Dhillan deceased, filed a claim before the Claims Tribunal for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by them. THE allegation made by them in the claim petition beiefly stated was that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving by Sepoy Ram Niwas, respondent No. 4, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Besides sepoy Ram Niwas the Chief of Army Staff, the Commandant A. S. C. Centre (North), and Sub-Area Commander, Meerut were impleaded as O. Ps. It appears at a later stage Union of India was also impleaded. The petition was opposed on behalf of the opposite parties. In the written statement filed by them it was not denied that the accident culminating in the death of Jaswant Singh Dhillan took place with the military vehicle driven by sepoy Ram Niwas. It was, however, pleaded that the accident took place as a result of the negligence of the deceased himself and not on account of the negligence of Sepoy Ram Niwas. It was also pleaded that the petition was not maintainable against the Chief of Army Staff, respondent No. 1, the Commandant A. S. C. Centre (North), respondent No. 2 and the Sub-Area Commander, Meerut, respondent No. 3, because the vehicle did not belong to anyone of them, and further that the Union of India, respondent No. 5, was also not liable to pay any compensation because the vehicle was detailed for training of M. T. recruits and the driver of the vehicle was performing a statutory duty when the accident took place. In regard to the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants, the respondents pleaded that it was excessive. The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues in the case : 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. 43420 or whether the deceased himself dashed against the rear wheel of the vehicle and was negligent ? 2. Whether the petition is maintainable against O. Ps. 1 to 3, as alleged in para 26 of the written statement. 3. Whether the Union of India is not liable to pay any compensation because when the alleged accident took place, the vehicle was detailed for training of M. T. recruits and the driver of the vehicle was performing a statutory duty ? 4.To what compensation, if any, are the applicants entitled and from which of the opposite parties
(3.) IN answer to issue No. 1, the Claims Tribunal held that the Military Truck was not being driven rashly and negligently and the truck driver was not responsible for the fatal accident. IN answer to issue No. 2 the Claims Tribunal held that respondent Nos 1 to 3 were not liable for the consequences of the fatal accident as the truck did not belong to any one of them, but belonged to the Union of INdia. IN answer to issue No. 3, the Claims Tribunal held that, since respondent No. 4 was performing the statutory duty in driving the truck at the time of the accident, the Union of INdia was not liable to give any compensation. IN answer to issue No. 4 the Claims Tribunal held that, if the finding on issue Nos. 1 and 3 were not in favour of the claimants, they would have been entitled to get a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. In consequence of the findings on issue Nos. 1 to 3 the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim for compensation and hence this appeal.;