JUDGMENT : Venugopal, J.—This appeal coming on for hearing on this day the court delivered the following judgment: 1. The Petitioners before the Tribunal are the parents of the deceased Raghavan, aged 15 years. On 12-9-1973, at about 11-30 a.m. while the deceased was riding a cycle towards south on the eastern side of the road and on the south of-Pallineliya-nur level crossing gate, the lorry belonging to the Pondicherry Project Agricultural Department which was coming from south to north dashed against the boy as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and died later. The parents of the deceased filed a petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- impleading the Government of Pondicherry through its Chief Secretary as the 1st Respondent and the Director of Project Agricultural Department as the 2nd Respondent. The lorry driver was impleaded as the third Respondent. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. The plea that the accident occurred while the lorry was employed on official duty and there was no liability for payment of compensation on the ground of act of State was not accepted by the Tribunal. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, Respondents 1 and 2 have filed this appeal before this Court. 2. It is first contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the accident was not on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The accident had occurred about 10 feet south of the railway level crossing. The plea of the Appellants is that the deceased met with the accident while he was trying to cross the road from east to west. If the accident had occurred while the boy tried to cross the road, it should have taken place either in the middle of the road or on the western side of the road. But it is significant to note that the accident had taken place only on the eastern side of the road. Even in Ex. P. 7 the report to the police, the driver of the lorry has not stated that the accident had occurred on account of the boy crossing the road. But it is significant to note that the accident had taken place only on the eastern side of the road. Even in Ex. P. 7 the report to the police, the driver of the lorry has not stated that the accident had occurred on account of the boy crossing the road. So the plea of the Appellants that the accident had occurred while the boy was trying to cross the road, has been rightly negatived by the Tribunal. Ex. P. 9, a certified copy of the inquest report shows that after the deceased was caught in the wheels of the lorry he was physically dragged to a distance of 10 ft. There is also the evidence of P.W. 2 that the lorry was found in a slanting position on the eastern side of the road at a distance of 30 ft. from the accident spot. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and also taking into account that the lorry was found at a distance of 30 ft. from the accident spot, it is clear that the lorry must have been driven in a rash and negligent manner. P.W. 2 is running a tea stall very near the place of accident. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 2. The Tribunal was perfectly justified in believing the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and to come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. Under Ex. R. 2, the lorry driver was asked to report before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Police Headquarters, Pondicherry at 10-00 hours on 12-9-1973. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that while the lorry was proceeding to report to the Senior Superintendent of police to carry policemen for bandobust duty as required under Ex. R. 2 the accident had occurred and as the driver was acting in exercise of delegated sovereign power of the State there is no liability to pay compensation. The immunity of the State in respect of torts committed by its servants during the course of their duty is now well settled and the Appellants can succeed only when it is established that at the time of the accident, the lorry was driven in the exercise of the sovereign functions of the State. Under Ex. The immunity of the State in respect of torts committed by its servants during the course of their duty is now well settled and the Appellants can succeed only when it is established that at the time of the accident, the lorry was driven in the exercise of the sovereign functions of the State. Under Ex. R. 2 the driver of the lorry was required to report before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pondicherry at 10-00 a.m. on 12-9-1973. The accident had occurred at about 11-30 a.m. The evidence of the driver (R.W. 1) is that he was taking fertilisers to party at Kariamanickam and it was 11-00 a.m. when the work was completed and thereafter he was proceeding in the lorry. The evidence of R.W. 1 does not establish that after transporting fertiliser to the party, he was proceeding to report to the police department as required under Ex. R. 2. The evidence on record do not establish that at the time when the accident occurred, the driver was proceeding in his lorry to report to the police officer as required under Ex. R. 2. That apart, R.W. 1 in the prosecution launched against him for rash and negligent driving, denied the factum of his driving the lorry at the time of the accident though before the Tribunal he admitted that he was driving the lorry at the time of the accident. The evidence of R.W. 1 thus does not inspire confidence and the attempt that the tortious act by the driver was committed while exercising sovereign functions of the State cannot be accepted on the slender evidence of R.W. 1. 3. The Bombay High Court in Union of India v. Sugrabai and Ors. has held that, "in deciding whether a particular act was done by a government servant in discharge of a sovereign power delegated to him, the proper test is whether it was necessary for the State for the proper discharge of its sovereign function to have the act done through its own employee rather than through a private agency". has held that, "in deciding whether a particular act was done by a government servant in discharge of a sovereign power delegated to him, the proper test is whether it was necessary for the State for the proper discharge of its sovereign function to have the act done through its own employee rather than through a private agency". Applying this test to the present case, it is seen that the lorry belongs to the agricultural department and the police department need not, have employed the lorry of the agricultural department to carry police men for bando-bust duty and thus the discharging of the sovereign function need not have been entrusted to the lorry driver employed under the agricultural, department. Thus, it can be seen that the driving of the lorry was not performance of a duty in discharge of a sovereign function delegated to the lorry driver. The Appellants, are, therefore, liable for the tortious act committed by the lorry driver. In the result the award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal fails and stands dismissed with costs.