JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:—This appeal on certificate is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana awarding to the plaintiff-respondents a decree for Rs. 21,600/-. It arises out of these facts.

2. On January 21, 1955. Lala Wazir Singh deceased a retired Divisional Engineer (Railways) was travelling from Delhi to Hissar by a bus belonging to the Krishna Bus Service Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). On the way the vehicle went out of order. Lala Wazir Singh and some other passengers were then transferred to another bus No. DLB 5749 belonging to the same Company. This bus was being driven by Harbans Singh, defendant 3 (Respondent 8 herein) who was an employee of the Company acting under its directions and instructions. When at about 3 P.M. this bus was negotiating a turn in village Kheri Sadh, a few miles from Rohtak it overturned causing the death of Lala Wazir Singh at the spot and injuries to several other passengers.

3. The widow, the sons, the daughters, the grandsons and grand-daughters of the deceased instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. 1st class Rohtak for the recovery of Rs. 50.000/- as damages for the loss caused to them on account of his death. The Company was impleaded as defendant No. 1 the Insurance Company was joined as defendant No.2 and the driver of the bus as defendant 3. It was alleged that the accident causing the death of L. Wazir Singh occurred on account of the negligence of defendants 1 and 3. The bus, it was pleaded was not in proper order; it was overloaded with passengers and goods, and despite these facts defendant 3 drove it at a very high speed while it was negotiating a turn. The liability of the employer Company was sought to be fixed on the ground that it was negligent in employing such a rash and negligent driver and that the accident occurred when defendant 3 was acting in the course of its employment.

4. In their written statement presented on July 16, 1956, the Company admitted that the bus involved in the accident belonged to it and at the time of the accident it was driven by their employee, defendant 3. In regard to the allegations of negligence, the Company replied:

"The accident alleged by the plaintiff was not due to any negligent or careless driving of Harbans Singh Driver of the vehicle owned by the defendant but was vis major. There was rain on that day and the front was slippery. The bus overturned and the death of the said Wazir Chand (Singh) was no case the result of overturning of the Bus."

5. While finding that the death of L. Wazir Singh had occurred on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident in question, the trial Court held that the accident took place "on account of the breaking of the tie-rod of the vehicle due to which the bus went out of the control of the driver". The tie-rod. according to the trial Court broke because the front left wheel of the vehicle while it was negotiating a turn, fell into a pit. The Court further held that the vehicle was not overloaded and its speed at the time of the accident was not more than 20 or 25 miles per hour and as such was not excessive. On these premises, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs has failed to prove that the accident involving fatal injuries to the deceased was due to rash or negligent driving by defendant No. 3. It further held that in case Issues 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs, the maximum damages awardable to them would be Rs. 34,210/- i.e., the amount of pension which the deceased would have earned had been alive for 9 years and 2 months after the accident.

6. On these findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

7. Aggrieved the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the High Court. The Division Bench who heard the appeal has after appraising the evidence on record, reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that "the accident was due to negligence attributable to defendant 3 or both