JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed against the award made by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar in Claim Case No. 45 of 1973. The tribunal has awarded Rs. 25100 to the claimant Kumari Neelam, a girl aged six, whose right leg had to be amputated just below the knee joint. The accident, the Tribunal held, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Motor Vehicle B. A. No. U. D. 36634 by the driver Khuma Ram. ( 2. ) THE vehicle belonged to the Military Department. The driver was also an employee of the Military Department. On 29-9-1973, at 9-30 A. M. , the vehicle was going for bringing vegetables and other articles from the supply Department for the prisoners of war stationed in a camp. When it reached a culvert near Hanuman Mandir, it dashed against the claimant. She was immediately removed to the Military Hospital but her limb could not be saved. The right leg was so badly crushed that it had to be amputated just below the knee. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the drivers negligence. ( 3. ) THE appellants in their defence attributed the accident to the negligence of the child. They pleaded that the girl got scared because a motor-cycle passed by her side in high speed, quite unexpectedly. She, therefore, ran across the road and in confusion dashed against the Military Vehicle. They further pleaded that the vehicle at the relevant time was engaged in performing sovereign duty and, therefore, they were immune from liability. ( 4. ) AS said above, the Tribunal gave an award of Rs. 25100. It held that the driver was negligent and that the vehicle was not performing any sovereign duty. ( 5. ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants could not seriously assail the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver. Neelam was on the left side of the road on Patri when the Military truck while crossing a tonga, knocked her down. That is what Shankar (A. W. 2) says. He was the tongawala, whose tonga the vehicle had crossed. The girl was just behind his tonga. It was a time when children were rushing to School and the driver of the vehicle was expected to be more vigilant and careful. That is what Shankar (A. W. 2) says. He was the tongawala, whose tonga the vehicle had crossed. The girl was just behind his tonga. It was a time when children were rushing to School and the driver of the vehicle was expected to be more vigilant and careful. The evidence is that the vehicle could not be stopped immediately after the brakes were applied. The girl was dragged along. The Tribunal has exhaustively discussed the evidence and it will serve no useful purpose reappraising the same. We confirm the finding that the accident occurred due to the drivers negligence. ( 6. ) ON quantum of compensation, there is hardly any scope for interference. The Tribunal has referred to comparable cases in paras 69 and 70 of its award. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Devi and others, (1971 A C J 58) an award of Rs. 20,000 was confirmed by the Patna High Court. The injured in that case was a girl aged six, whose one leg had been amputated. The Delhi High Court in Junil Kumar v. Roshanlal, (1973 A C J 41) had in similar circumstances awarded Rs. 28,000 to a girl aged 6. ( 7. ) THE last point argued by the learned counsel was that the vehicle was engaged at the relevant time in the performance of a sovereign duty. The Tribunal has cited a catena of authorities both of the Supreme Court and of various other High Courts drawing a distinction between acts referable to the exercise of sovereign powers delegated to public servants and acts committed by public servants which are not referable to the delegation of sovereign powers. The distinction assumes importance because the present day Government in their welfare ideal, has to enter into various commercial and other undertakings and activities which have no relation with the traditional concept of Governmental activities, in which exercise of sovereign power is involved. Where the work can be and is being undertaken by private individuals, there is nothing peculiar about it to be called a sovereign activity. ( 8. ) IN the present case, vegetables could be transported even by a private vehicle. A military truck engaged in that activity would not make it a sovereign act absolving the Union of India from the liability for the tortious act committed by its servant. ( 9. ( 8. ) IN the present case, vegetables could be transported even by a private vehicle. A military truck engaged in that activity would not make it a sovereign act absolving the Union of India from the liability for the tortious act committed by its servant. ( 9. ) IN the result, therefore, there is no merit in this appeal, and it must be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsels fee as per schedule. Appeal dismissed.