JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This age-old appeal filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad on 25.11.1988, could be received by this Court only on 6.1.2015 i.e. after almost 27 years, so after issuing notice to all concerned, this could be heard by the Court today. 2. Impugned judgment dated 23.8.1988 is under challenge whereby the compensation to the tune of Rs.52,600/- was awarded by the concerned Tribunal to the injured/claim petitioner Nain Singh. 3. The facts, shorn of all unnecessary details, are that the Truck No.DHL-6269, owned by Indo-Tibetan Border Police, for the purpose of election duty, was being plied from Dehradun to Gorakhpur by its driver Mr. Inder Singh. On 11.5.1980 at 7:50 A.M., the accident occurred on the way falling within the territorial jurisdiction of District Dehradun, whereby the petitioner suffered serious injuries. So, he presented the Claim Petition No.163 of 1980 asking the damages to the tune of Rs.52,600/-, which have been granted to him, as claimed. 4. The accident has not been denied by the appellants, herein. 5. It was contended before the Court on behalf of the appellants that since the vehicle was on its sovereign duty and it was not being driven rashly and negligently, so no liability can be fastened upon the Union of India. It was further argued that the driver Mr. Inder Singh, was impelled to swerve the vehicle to the right side in order to save a cyclist, who suddenly appeared from the left side and there was no scope for any rash or negligence since the truck was being plied in a convoy of -9- vehicles and it was at the fifth position. 6. Looking to the facts of the case, I find that these contentions do not have any legs to stand. The first contention as regards the rash and negligent driving is not acceptable for the simple reason that even if the version of the Mr. Inder Singh is accepted for a moment, then also, nothing prevented the driver of the truck to apply the immediate brakes of the vehicle, instead of deviating the vehicle to the right side and hitting the standing rickshaw there, inasmuch as, dismantling three consecutive culverts. Inder Singh is accepted for a moment, then also, nothing prevented the driver of the truck to apply the immediate brakes of the vehicle, instead of deviating the vehicle to the right side and hitting the standing rickshaw there, inasmuch as, dismantling three consecutive culverts. This accident, by itself, speaks (res ipsa loquitor) about the rash and negligence on the part of the truck driver who could have avoided 3 the accident had he applied due diligence, care and attention at the relevant time. 7. As regards the action of sovereign is concerned that notion could have been applied in the event when the vehicle was being driven with all care and attention. I am of the opinion that simply for the reason that such vehicle was owned by the Union Government, that by itself, does not confer any liberty on its driver to drive it recklessly and commit the accident and causing serious injuries to the injured, as has been done in the case in hand. 8. In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. As regards the cross objection is concerned, I am unable to agree on that score too because this cross objection was also filed way back in 1989 and the Tribunal has awarded the full amount of compensation, as was claimed by the injured. So, he is now estopped to raise such plea at a later point of time. Objections are accordingly rejected.