Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.P. SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
State of Maharashtra and others, Appellants
Versus
Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 7564 of 1995 (arising out of S.P.L. (Civil) No. 5298 of 1993)
Decided on 22-8-1995.
Motor Vehicles Act 1939 - Section 94 - Motor Vehicles Tribunal claim - Pay compensation to Claim - State Government dashed against scooter because of which victim sustained serious injuries in hospital appellant was driver of said jeep but time of accident Respondent hereinafter referred to as respondent who was then a clerk in Engineering Fishing Project Division was driving jeep Respondents filed their claim before Motor Vehicles Tribunal claiming compensation for death of Vijay Singh- It was alleged that respondent was under influence of liquor and was driving jeep in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in accident and death of Vijay Singh- It was also alleged that said respondent was driving jeep with knowledge and consent of appellant driver of jeep as such appellants and respondent were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for accident- Vijay Singh deceased was then aged about and was earning –Held, Court has also found that respondent who was clerk in office of appellant was driving vehicle authority of driver who was in-charge of said vehicle and as driver had consumed more liquor on that day he permitted respondent to drive vehicle that night present case disclose and demonstrate that act was being done in an manner accident took place when act was being performed in a mode which may not be proper but nonetheless it was directly connected with course of employment it was not an independent act for a purpose or business which had no nexus or connection with business State Government so as to absolve appellant-State from liability crucial test is whether initial act of employee was expressly and lawful employer as in present case State Government shall nevertheless be responsible for manner in which employee that is driver and respondent executed authority- This necessary ensure so that injuries caused to third parties who are not directly involved or concerned with nature of authority vested by master to his servant are not deprived from getting compensation- If dispute revolves around mode or manner of execution of authority of master by servant master cannot escape liability so far third parties are concerned ground that he had not actually particular manner in which act was done- In present case it has been established beyond doubt that driver of vehicle had been fully drive jeep for a purpose connected with affairs of State and dispute is only in respect of manner and mode in which said driver performed his duties by allowing another employee of State Government who was also going on an official duty to drive jeep when accident took place- Once it established that negligent act of driver and respondent was in course of employment appellant-State shall be liable for same - Appeal dismissed
Judgement
N. P. SINGH. J : - Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and others against the judgement of the High Court holding that the appellant-State shall be vicariously liable for payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased, who was the victim of the accident.
3. On 31-3-1980 at about 10.00 p.m. an accident took place opposites S. T. Divisional Office, Ratnagiri in which one Vijay Singh died. At that time the said Vijay Singh was driving the scooter and the jeep which belonged to the State Government dashed against the scooter because of which the victim sustained serious injuries in the hospital. The appellant No. 3 was the driver of the said jeep, but at the time of accident Respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as respondent) who was then a clerk in Engineering Fishing Project Division, Ratnagiri, was driving the jeep.
4. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed their claim before the Motor Vehicles Tribunal, claiming Rs. 4,00,000/- as the compensation for the death of Vijay Singh. It was alleged that respondent was under the influence of liquor and was driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident and death of Vijay Singh. It was also alleged that the said respondent was driving the jeep with the knowledge and consent of the appellant No. 3, the driver of the jeep, as such the appellants and respondent were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the accident. Vijay Singh, the deceased was then aged about 35 years and was earning Rs. 1,400/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants, it was admitted that respondent was driving the jeep although he had no licence to drive the same. It was also admitted that he was under the influence of liquor. However, it was pleaded on behalf of the appellants that said respondent had snatched the keys of the jeep from the driver, appellant No. 3, and started driving the jeep from the office premises. It was asserted that in that background the appellants including the State could not be held to be vicariously liable for the compensation to be paid to the claimants. Respondent filed a separate written statement and denied that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and claimed that he was sitting by the side of the driver, appellant No. 3 who was driving the jeep.
6. The Tribunal on materials on record came to the conclusion that it was respondent who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and he caused the accident because of his rash and negligent driving. It was also held that he was having no licence to drive the jeep in question. But the Tribunal accepted the case of the appellants that said respondent had snatched the keys of the jeep from the driver and was driving the vehicle unauthorisedly. In this background only respondent could be held to be liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal directed respondent to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to the claimants.
7. The High Court affirmed the finding of the Tribunal that it was the respondent who was driving the jeep at the time of accident. After referring several materials on records including the first Information Report which was lodged after the accident, the High Court came to the conclusion that the case put forward on behalf of the appellants that respondent had snatched the keys forcibly from the driver was not correct. The High Court pointed out that the pleadings and evidence on record clearly indicate that it was the year ending day, 31-3-1980, and the clerks and officers were required to work during night time. This was at the instance of appellant No. 2, who was the in-charge of the Office. The evidence further disclosed that after normal working hours of the office, the employees had gone to their homes and were required to come back after taking dinner. The jeep was used for bringing the employees to the office. The High Court said that on th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
