S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) HARBANS Lal, an employee of Amritsar Sugar and Oil Mills Limited, Chheharta, was run over by a military jeep at about 7.30 p. m. on September 13,1966 while proceeding from the city towards Khalsa College and killed at the spot.
(2.) RESPONDENTS , the widow and the minor children of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Accidents Claims Tribunal alleging that Harbans Lal was killed because of rash and negligent driving of the jeep. The claim was opposed by the Union of India and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Was the accident due to any negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved ? 1 -A. Was the application made within time, and if not, are there sufficient reasons to condone the delay ? 2. What is the quantum of compensation due, if any, and from whom to whom ? All the issues were decided in favour of the claimants. Under issue No. 2 it was further held that the dependents have been deprived of Rs. 100/ - per month and their annual loss was thus assessed at Rs. 1,200/ -. Life expectancy was taken to be 60 years and the deceased being of 45 years at the time of his death, the claimants were allowed loss for 15 years in the amount of Rs. 18,000/ -. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal dated May 15, 1968, the Union of India has come up in this appeal. At the outset, the learned Advocate General Punjab, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, contended that the military jeep involved in the accident was on sovereign duty and, therefore, no compensation could be claimed against the Union of India. This objection cannot be allowed to be urged because no such plea was taken in the written statement nor any issue framed. The claimants therefore, got no opportunity to meet this objection or to lead any evidence. This objection, therefore, is overruled.
(3.) IT was next contended that from the evidence on the record, it cannot be said that the accident took place because of the negligent driving of the jeep. The claimants, in support of their case, examined A. W. 2, Ajit Singh and A. W. 3 Beant Singh who stated that the deceased was going on the correct side of the road on the bicycle when he was struck by the jeep coming from the opposite side which was being driven rashly and negligently. The statements of these two witnesses were believed by the learned Tribunal and nothing has been brought to my notice which could persuade me to take a different view. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is consequently confirmed.;