JUDGMENT 1. - These are three appeals against judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim No. 128 of 1981. All the appeals, one by the claimants, one by Shanker Raj, and Om Prakash, third one by Union of India are disposed of by a common order. 2. The claim petition was filed by Ram Narain Yadav on his own behalf and on behalf of three minor children, Balkishan, Varun and Sita against the Union of India and Shanker Raj, Om Prakash and Regional Director National Saving Organisation (Om Prakash). 3. On 7-4-1981 the claimant Ram Narain alongwith his wife and children were standing on the pavement of Rajendra Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. Suddenly Jeep No. RSL 3815 driven by Shanker Raj appellant No. 1 rashly and negligently left the road and hit Shanti Devi wife of Ram Narain. Shanti Devi expired on account of this accident. 4. The claim was contested on the ground that the jeep was driven by the appellant No. 2 Shanker Raj and not by Om Prakash. The contest was also on the ground of same reply, that it was driven by the person who was not the owner. The other defence was that the accident was due to certain mechanical defect breaking of tier therefore there was no negligence or rashness. 5. Significantly enough the Union of India did not contest the claim on the ground that no liability can be fasten on Union of India. Contrary to it the contest was that the vehicle was in ownership of Om Prakash Regional Director and Union of India. After recording of the evidence and the arguments the award was given for Rs. 22,826. 6. In this appeal the Union of India has filed the appeal on the ground that in any case the Union of India is not liable because the vicarious liability can be fastened only when it is proved that the person who was driving the vehicle was doing it on behalf of Union of India or as an authorised agent of Union of India. 7. Mr. Gupta relied upon the judgment of this Court in D.C.M. v. Smt Surajdevi in support of his contention that vicarious liability can not be fastened. Mr. Srivastava who has appeared on behalf of Om Prakash and Shanker Raj has invited my attention to the pleading of the parties and so also Mr. 7. Mr. Gupta relied upon the judgment of this Court in D.C.M. v. Smt Surajdevi in support of his contention that vicarious liability can not be fastened. Mr. Srivastava who has appeared on behalf of Om Prakash and Shanker Raj has invited my attention to the pleading of the parties and so also Mr. Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of the claimants. Their main contention is that the Union of India could not dare to challenge its liability nor it could dare to say that Om Prakash was not authorised nor it could say that Shanker Raj was not authorised. My attention was particularly drawn on para 9 of reply. Mr. Srivastava pointed out that from the reply of the Union of India it is clear that the non-petitioners No. 3 and 4 were owner. Non-Petitioners No. 3 and 4 are Regional Director Om Prakash and Union of India. 8. On the above bedrock Mr. Srivastava argued that Om Prakash was the owner and Om Prakash in his reply has clearly stated that he was going on the Government work and if according to the evidence Shankar Raj took the vehicle and drove it, then since Regional Director has been admitted to be the owner by their own reply. Shanker Raj was authorised by the owner and consequently Union of India and Regional Director are liable. Mr. Srivastava has relied upon the following decisions to substantiate his argument that in such circumstances the Tribunal was justified in holding that Union of India and Regional Director both were liable. 1977 ACJ (Raj.) 15 : 1985 ACJ (Raj) 98 : 1976 ACJ (MP) 362. 9. It has also been held that where the Union of India is engaged in socio-economic activities then the defence of act of State is not available and immunity from compensation in case of accident cannot be availed of. 10. In the present case admittedly the non-petitioner Om Prakash was Regional Director and his functions were to motivate and look after the National Savings Programme which were certainly socio-economic programme of the Union of India. Consequently the question of any immunity from damages or compensation cannot arise. 11. 10. In the present case admittedly the non-petitioner Om Prakash was Regional Director and his functions were to motivate and look after the National Savings Programme which were certainly socio-economic programme of the Union of India. Consequently the question of any immunity from damages or compensation cannot arise. 11. Now coming to the question of vicarious liability it is clear from the pleadings of the parties that the Regional Director Om Prakash was going in the vehicle and the vehicle was being driven by his son Shankar Raj who was authorised by him by implication. 12. I am not prepared to accept the finding of the Tribunal that Shanker Raj was driving the vehicle unauthorisedly. When Om Prakash himself has stated that he was going in the vehicle for the Government work and when it is found that he was permitting his son Shanker Raj to drive the vehicle and when the pleading of the Union of India, itself is that number 3 non-petitioner Regional Director was having the status of owner of the vehicle, then in such circumstances the finding of unauthorised driving of Shanker Raj cannot be sustained. I therefore hold that the vehicle was being taken by Om Prakash Regional Director for the purposes of the functioning of his department and Shanker Raj who was son was driving the vehicle with the implied authority of his father Regional Director Om Prakash. 13. In such circumstances, as per the principles laid down in the above decisions, present one being a case where the Tribunal has rightly held that both Union of India and Regional Director are liable for negligence in driving of this vehicle by Shanker Raj. 14. The next question is regarding the quantum of compensation-cum-damages. The Tribunal has found that Shanti Devi used to do the business of maintaining cows and the buffalows and selling their milk, on account of which she used to earn Rs. 30 after meeting out the expenses for maintaining the cattle. It has also been found that out of this amount Rs. 10 is used to be spent on her and the rest of the amount is to be given for the benefit of family. Thus, the income benefit from the work of Shanti Devi is Rs. 20 per day. The Tribunal has allowed as compensation Rs. It has also been found that out of this amount Rs. 10 is used to be spent on her and the rest of the amount is to be given for the benefit of family. Thus, the income benefit from the work of Shanti Devi is Rs. 20 per day. The Tribunal has allowed as compensation Rs. 126 to Ram Narain for the loss of income from the death of Shanti Devi Rs. 2500 to each of the sons and daughter and Rs. 5000 to the children for love and affection and Rs. 5,000 to the husband Ram Narain for loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has taken the view that in all the income of one year is to be taken. 15. Ram Narain has been allowed Rs. 126 as funeral expenses which has not been reimbursed. I am of the opinion that it is true that Ram Narain get second marriage after nine months and the children will have step mother. However, care affection and the financial benefit which the children would have from the step mother may or may not substitute that of the real mother. It cannot be held as a proposition of law, it is to be appreciated that the children who are very young would certainly be deprived of the benefit of the income which their mother could have given to them and since the age of these children according to the record at that time of death of the mother was three years, five years and seven years and the age of mother was 25 years, I would allow the compensation treating that the children would get the benefit of this amount atleast for 12 years. In that case the amount of compensation would be 20x30x12x12=86,400. This amount would be paid in equal proportion to the three children only. In all other respect the amount awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal of the Union of India cannot be accepted and consequently dismissed and regarding the appeal of Om Prakash and Shanker Raj on the one hand and the claimants on the other hand it is held that the amount of claim would be increased as indicated above and all the respondents non-petitioners would be individually and jointly liable for the payment of the same. The claimant would also get the interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till the date of realisation. 16. The calculation of the interest would be done by adjusting in such a manner that the same may not be charged from the date payment has been made or deposited in the court. The parties would bear their own costs, so far as this Court is concerned in all the three appeals.Appeal Decided Accordingly.. *******