Union Of India vs S.P. Ahluwalia
1989 Latest Caselaw 464 Del

JUDGMENT

Malik, J.

1. Two petitions Nos.58 of 1980 and 59 of 1980 title S P Ahluwalia v. Udham Singh and another and Mrs. S P Ahluwalia v Udham Singh and another were disposed of by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by its order dated September 23, 1980 allowing Rs.4,000 and Rs.6,000 respectively as compensation for the inquires sustained by the aforesaid two persons who were involved in an accident with jeep NO.DLI 3864 belonging to the Union of India and driven by respondent No.1 in the claim petition on the date of the incident that is on February 18, 1972. The injuries sustained were simple in nature but the award was made after taking into consideration the status of Mr.S P Ahulwalia who was a public prosecutor in the Delhi Administration and the anxiety he had to undergo. In the case of Mrs. S P Ahluwalia, the Tribunal felt that, on the date of the incident, she was pregnant and the accident caused her a lot of agony and anxiety.

2. Before I deal with the matter, I must take notice of the preliminary objection raised by Shri Raman Kapur representing the Union of India. Mr. Raman Kapur maintains that, before the filing of the claim petition the claimants ought to have served a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the appellants. I am not in agreement with Mr. Raman Kapur suit is intended to be filed against the Government or against any officer in respect of an act which is done by such public officer in the discharge of his official duties. The scheme of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not a civil court but is a Tribunal. It has created a special procedure and conferred a special jurisdiction on the Tribunal to deal with such types of claims as would strictly fall under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure read as under :

"In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred r any special form or procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force."

3. Now, adverting to the appeal, I must point out that after going through the record and the order, it is patently obvious that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is most proper and appropriate. There is nothing on the record to persuade me to come to a different conclusion. The accident in fact is the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver and the Union of India under whom the driver was serving is liable vicariously for the negligence of its driver. The compensation allowed in both the claims in my view, is not excessive. Mr. Raman Kapur maintains that it is excessive as the value of the money has to assessed in the light of its value in the year 1972 when the accident took place. I do no find myself in agreement for the reason that the award was made in the year 1980 and the amount awarded was deposited some time in the month of March, 1981 after this court on February 26, 1981, ordered it to be deposited in the court and to be paid to the respondents subject to their furnishing os security. Thus, it would be seen that even though the claim had arisen in the year 1972, it was paid only in the year 1981, i.e more than 8 years after the date of the accident and by that time the purchasing power of the money had been considerably reduced. I find no error of judgment either on the facts or in law in the order under appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The security furnished by the respondents in both the appeals shall stand discharged.