The owner of a vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligent actions of the driver, even if the passenger was unauthorized, rejecting claims of sovereign immunity.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/claimant impugning the order dated 22.07.2009 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum –Additional District Judge, Eluru in OP.No.80 of 2007.

2. Heard arguments of Sri BV Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri G.Arun Showri, the learned Central Government counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The short question involved in this appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned claims tribunal erred in not fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle.

4. The question arose in the following context A Mini Van bearing registration number AP 16 U 5376 is a van used for MMS services by the postal department. It was driven by its employee who was holding valid driving licence. The vehicle, since belonged to the Government, it seems the option of not obtaining insurance policy as allowed by section 146(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was exercised and thus there was no insurance policy covering third-party risks. In such events, the liability, if any, is assumed by the Government.

5. On 28.12.2002, this vehicle was coming from Addanki side to Ongole and enroute the driver of it permitted Sri P Danieyelu to board the vehicle at 9:30 AM on 28.12.2002. At about 10:30 AM when it reached near coastal center, the driver of it failed to exercise reasonable care and caution and the vehicle went into a pit and turned turtle and consequently, P Danieyelu suffered serious injuries. The injured was said to be a pastor earning monthly salary. He filed MVOP.80 of 2007 as against the driver and the senior superintendent of Post Office, Prakasam district, praying for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in terms of section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988. The driver as well as owner presented their counters. The driver contended that the claimant never travelled in the offending vehicle and he did not sustain any injuries in the accident. The owner contended that the driver was not authorized to carry passengers unauthorizedly and prayed for dismissal of the claim. The following issues were settled by the tribunal.

1. Whether the petitioner-Injured sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 28-12-2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini Van bearing No.AP 16 U 5376, driven by its driver-1st Respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

There was evidence of PW.1 and 2 and Ex. A1 to A6 and the evidence of RW.1 was available for consideration. The subject matter accident was registered as Cr.No.69 of 2002 by Maddipadu Police Station evidenced by Ex.A1/FIR and the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted for prosecution as evidence by Ex.A5. Considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the above documents, learned claims tribunal concluded that claimant was in the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle suffered the accident because of rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It assessed compensation under various heads and granted them as mentioned below.

6. Thus, more than what was claimed was considered as just compensation by the tribunal. It stated that the compensation required to be paid only by the driver of the vehicle, not by the owner. It passed the award in the following terms.

In the result, this Petition is allowed granting compensation of Rs.2,79,400/- with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the above said amount within two months from the date of this Award. The petitioner is directed to pay the Court fee pa