Short Note : The appellant No.4 was driving the vehicle M.P.O. 2188 belonging to C.S.W.T. run by the Central Government. The said vehicle dashed against the respondent on 20-12-1969 at about 3-30 A.M. while he was going on a bicycle on account of which he was severely injured The respondent was taken to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore where he took the treatment as indoor patient till 28-12-1969. The respondent made a claim for Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation against the appellants on the ground that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by appellant No.4. The claim was contested by the appellants on the ground that the respondent himself was at fault as he was driving the bicycle in the middle of the road when the appellant No.4 in order to save the respondent took the vehicle to further right, the respondent turned that way and got himself dashed against the bumper of the vehicle which was moving very slowly and thereby sustained injuries. It was also pleaded that the respondent's claim was not maintainable because the vehicle was being driven by appellant No. 4 in performance of the sovereign function of the Government of India. 2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to the findings that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by non-applicant No.4 and the wrongful act of appellant No. 4 could not be protected on the ground that he was driving the vehicle in performance of the sovereign functions of the Government of India. The Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation to a sum of Rs.2,000/- and gave the Award with respect to the said sum against the appellants. They therefore, came to the High Court in appeal. Held : In the instant case, the accident took place when the appellant No. 4 was carrying camp trainees from the Railway Station to the C.S.W.T. Centre Bijasan in the truck. The said act in carrying the trainees as passengers could have been performed by any private person as well. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant No.4 was performing the sovereign functions of the Government of India at the time when he caused the accident on account of rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the Union Government or its Officers, i.e., appellant Nos. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant No.4 was performing the sovereign functions of the Government of India at the time when he caused the accident on account of rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the Union Government or its Officers, i.e., appellant Nos. 1 to 3 cannot claim immunity from the liability to damages for the tortious act of appellant No.4. 3. Looking to the injuries sustained by the respondent, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by way of compensation does not seem to be excessive and hence no interference is called for by this Court in the Award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore. Union of India v. Varadambal and others, 1969 ACJ 220, Union of India v. Sugrabai Abdul Majid, 1968 ACJ 252 relied on. Stare of M.P. v. Saheb Duttamal, 1967 ACJ 246 distinguished. Appeal dismissed.