The owner of a vehicle is liable for the negligence of the driver, even if the driver was acting outside the scope of his employment, provided that the driver was acting in the course of his employment.

( 1 ) THE respondent, S. Venkateswara rao, owned a lorry, bearing No. APK-720. It was engaged for carrying empty milk-cans from Pamarru Chilling centre to Yelamarru village. It was insured with the New India Assurance company Ltd. , Vijayawada. It was being driven by one B Krishna Reddy, the driver employed by the respondent.

( 2 ) ON 3-8-1973, while carrying the empty milk-cans, the driver, B. Krishna Redddy, took in the deceased, moturi Hanumantha Rap, as a passenger in the lorry. The deceased also loaded a few manure bags into the lorry. The deceased was sitting in the cabin on the extreme left. Another woman was also travelling ae a passenger, but in the rear. At about 3. 15 p m the lorry met with an accident, resulting in the death of M. Hanumantha Rao and the woman travelling in the rear of the lorry. The legal representatives of the deceased, Moturi hanumantha Rao, thereupon, instituted 0 P No 9/1974, claiming an amount of rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation. The 0 P was filed against the owner of the vehicle (respondent herein), and the insurance Company, The claimants submitted that the lorry was driven by the driver rashly and negligently, resulting in the accident and, therefore, the owner and the insurance Company are liable to pay compensation.

( 3 ) THE owner (1st respondent) in his counter denied that the driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. He also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants. The insurance Company took an additional plea that it is not liable in any manner because, the deceased was travelling in the lorry contrary to the terms of the insurance-policy. Three issues were framed by the tribunal, viz:-" (1) whether the accident is due to rash and negligent driving; (2) whether the petitioners are entitled to compansation; if so, to what quantun and against which of thy respondents; and (3) to what reliefs?"on the first issue, it was found by the tribunal that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, Krishna Reddy; on the second issue, the Tribunal found thet rs 10,000/ is the reasonable compensation; but, it found that the Insurance company cannot be made liable, inasmuch as the Vehicle was a goods- vehicle, and the deceased was not in the employment of the owner, but was taken in as a passenger by the driver for his own reasons The Tribunal observed that the insurance policy gives cover only to the employees of the owner not exceeding six in number, and travelling in the vehicle, in the course of thair emoloyment; since the deceased did not fall in this category, the Insurance Company was expprated, and the owner (1st respondent) alone was held liable for the said amount.

( 4 ) THE owner (1st respondent) filed C M A No 271 of 1977 in this court, impleading the claimants, as also the insurance Company as respondents. The learned single Judge allowed the appeal, following the Bench decision of this Court in Machiraju Visalakshmi Vs. Treasurer Council of India, Mission of the Luthern Church In America, Guntur-2 (1 ). (1978) - II An. W. R, P. 51 following the said decision, the learned single Judge held that inasmuch as the lorry was engaged only for carrying empty milk-cans, it was no part of the driver s duty, or job entrusted to him by his master, to pick up passengers on the way receiving money from them. The owner was, accordingly, held not liable for the negligence, or wrongful act of the driver. When the decision of the Supreme Court in pushpabai Vs. Ranjit G. and P. Company (AIR 1977, SC 1735) was brought to the notice of the learned judge, he observed that inasmuch as the said dacision affirms tne principle of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in sitaram vs. Santanu Prasad (AIR 1966, sc 1697), and also because the said decision too was referred to, and applied by the Bench in Machiraju s Case (supra), the Bench decision is binding upon him. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal by the claimants. Onl