The main legal point established in the judgment is the vicarious liability of the master for the acts of the servant done in the course of employment, emphasizing the need to consider all surrounding circumstances in determining the scope of employment.

VENKATACHALIAH, J.

( 1 ) THE two appeals are by the Union of india and its Defence Department. They arise out of and are directed against the common Judgment and a separate awards dated 16-1-1986 made in M V C. Nos. 39 of 1984 and 115 of 1984 respectively, on the file of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal I, Belgaum, awarding compensations in the two actions-one, a fatal accident's action and the other a personal injury action. The claims before the Tribunal frose out of an accident that occurred at 9 a. m. on 28-12-1983 involving Appellants' Military Vehicle no. 76-C 13703-A.

( 2 ) IN M. V. C. No. 39 of 1984, the claimant is Gowrawwa-the mother of one Chandru Channabasappa Shivapure. In M. V. C. No. 115 of 1984, a certain dada Peer is the claimant. The said chandru, aged about 30 years, died and dada Peer injured in the accident that occurred on the National High Way No. 4 near Nittur Village between Khanapur and Belgsum. The driver of the said military vehicle, though not authorised so to do, picked-up and gave a lift to these two parsons after collecting some money by way of fare from them. On the way from Khanapur to Belgaum, the vehicle hit a road-side tree. Chandru died. Dada Peer sustained injuries which included a fractine of the bone of his left upper arm, and other injuries all over his person. The mother of the deceased-Chandru and the injured Dada peer brought the two actions for compensation. For Chandru's death, the tribunal awarded to his mother Rs. 21,750/- as compensation. For the injuries, Dada Peer was awarded Rs. 24,700/ -.

( 3 ) IN the Tribunal, the driver of the vehicle and the appellants filed separate defences. The driver contended that the incident was an inevitable-accident and one caused by a mechanical. , failure. It was contended that the accident occurred at night while it was raining; that owing to the jolt caused by the wheels dipping into a pot-hole, the electrical connections to the lights snapped and there was a black-out and that when he applied the brakes, the vehicle skidded, went-off the road and hit a tree. The driver also contended that the deceased and the injured hurt themselves by jumping-off the vehicle. The appellants' defence was, however, was on these lines : at the time of accident, the driver was not on master's employment nor driving the vehicle on the master's purpose. The driver had been asked to take the vehicle to a place called Vaijanath and brii g it back to the garage ; but the driver did not return to the garage but on the return-trip took a detour and went in al-together different direction, towards Khanapur, on a frolic of his own. As the accident occurred on the way back from Khanapur, it could not be held to have occurred in the course of the master's work ; nor could the driver be held to have been acting in the course of employment. It was also contended that the vehicle was exclusively for military use and the driver had no authority to pick-up any civilian passengers. The act of the driver in taking passengers in a goods vehicle (a Tempo) was an on offence and also constituted a violation of the Departmental Instructions (Army Instructions 53 of 1958 ). Such an act, which was an offence under rule 161 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and in violation of master's orders. could not be said to be in the course of employment. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal recorded findings against the appellants on all material issues. The tribunal held that the accident was attributable to the negligence on the part of the driver of the military vehicle and also negatived the contentions urged against the vicarious liability of the appellants.

( 4 ) SRI Padmarajaiah, learned standing counsel for the Central Government, contended that, the findings of the Tribunal on all the material issues are erroneous and call for interference in appeal. On the contentions urged by the learned standing Counsel in support of the appeal, admit of being formulated thus: (a) That at th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document