The owner of a vehicle is not liable for the negligence or wrongful act of his servant if it is committed outside the course of his employment.

S. OBUL REDDI, C. J, J.

( 1 ) THESE two miscellaneous appeals arise out of two awards passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Godavari at Eluru in O. P. Nos. 75 and 76 of 1969. the claimants who are the legal representatives of the two deceased persons are the appellants before us. They filed separate applications under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act read with R. 514 of the Rules for awarding compensation.

( 2 ) IN O. P. No. 75 of 1969 out of which C. M. A. No. 19 of 1976 arises, the claimant asked for compensation of an amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 and in O. P. No. 75 of 1969 out of which C. M. A. No. 20 of 1976 arises, they asked for compensation of Rs. 40,000. 00 On 15-4-1969, a Fiat Car A. P. G. 8138 belonging to the first respondent, the Treasurer Council of India Mission of the Luthern Church in America, Guntur, was involved in an accident between milestones 310/5 and 310/4 Grand Trunk Road, while it was being taken from Rajahmundry to Guntur. The Fiat Car was driven by the Second Respondent, driver who was in the employment of the First respondent. A Police Constable who wanted to go from Rajahmundry to Guntur got into the care with the permission of the first respondent. The driver took the car up to a bus stand at Rajamundry and there parked it to have tea in a nearby tea stall. After he returned, the two deceased persons who wanted to go to Guntur and two others got into the car with the permission of the driver. While the Fiat Car was on its onward journey to Guntur, the accident resulting the death of the Police Constable and the two deceased passengers occurred when it went off the road and dashed against a tree. The dependants of the Police Constable did not file an application under S. 110-A of the Act, but the dependants of the two deceased passengers filed the two application claiming compensation at the rates stated above.

( 3 ) THE first respondent resisted the action on the ground that he had not authorised the driver to take any passengers in the car, that he did not know anything about the two deceased passengers having got into the car at the bus stand or the driver having permitted them to board it on payment of some charges and that it was not part of the duty or business of the driver to take passengers on the way and therefore, his liability is not attracted. The driver of the car, in his counter, stated that he drove the car with due care and diligence, but on account of the lorry that came in the opposite direction, the accident occurred. According to him, there was another lorry and therefore to avoid dashing against the second lorry, he swerved his car to the left and as there was no sufficient space, the car dashed against the tree. He however, survived, but the constable and two other passengers who boarded the car died in the accident. According to him, the first respondent had not given him any permission to pick up any passengers from the bus stand.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal on the pleadings framed appropriate issues and found on the main issues that the second respondent was rash and negligent in driving the motor vehicle, that the two deceased passengers were unauthorised passengers in the motor car and that the driver was not acting within the scope of his employment and authority. In that view, it held that the first respondent and the Insurance Company are not liable. He, however, held that the driver alone is liable to pay compensation at the rates awarded.

( 5 ) MR. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants claimants contended that the averments in the counter filed by the first respondent and his evidence would show that there was implied authority to the driver and that he had acted in the course of his employment and duty assigned to him, in taking the two deceased passengers, and therefore, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the liability of the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company was not attracted. It is therefore necessary to re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document