The owner of a vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver if the driver is an employee of the owner and the vehicle is being driven with the consent or permission of the owner.

( 1 ) HARGO Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. by this appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act ) has assailed the award dated 31. 8. 1981, passed by Mr. H. P. Bagchi, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi (herinafter called the Tribunal ). The award has been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the observation of the Tribunal regarding the jeep being roadworthy and Mohan Bahadur, the driver, drove the same with the consent or permission of the appellant are contrary to the evidence placed on record. Further that Mohan Bahadur was not in the employment of the appellant. He had in fact stolen the jeep from the chaupal, hence the appellant could not have been held vicariously liable. The Tribunal erroneously awarded the compensation for permanent disability as well as for future loss whereas both the terms are synonymous to each other and two separate amounts against each head could not have been awarded for the same disability. Even otherwise, without voucher and proof special damages could not have been awarded.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge to the award, the brief facts of the case are that Mukesh Sharma (respondent No. 1 herein) came from Nehru Park side of the Baraf- khana, Sabzi Mandi and was standing on the left side of the traffic point. He was asking the route from a traffic constable. While Mukesh Sharma was talking to the traffic constable, the traffic on both the sides on the G. T. Road was open, a jeep bearing No. DED 743 driven by Mohan Bahadur (respondent No. 2 herein) at a fast speed and in a negligent manner came from Rani Jhansi Marg, Bara Hindu Rao Hospital side. Though the traffic on that side was stopped by the traffic constable, the jeep without caring for the signal came at a fast speed and hit the right leg of Mukesh with its front portion and thereafter struck against the traffic point. The right leg of Mukesh was sandwiched between the jeep and the traffic point and was badly crushed, particularly the portion from the knee downwards and profuse bleeding started. Mukesh was immediately removed to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital. He remained admitted in the Emergency Ward up to 24. 9. 1978 and thereafter was removed to Tirath Ram Hospital where he remained as an indoor patient till 4. 10. 1978. He was thereafter removed to Diwan Chand Awal Nursing Home where he remained till 27. 10. 1978. He was 20 years old at the time of accident. He was a student of chartered accountancy and was working as an apprentice with Kohli and Co. , Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. He was being paid stipend at the rate of Rs. 60. 00 per month plus free conveyance and other facilities. The doctor who attended upon him opined that due to this accident there was permanent disability in his right leg. Due to this accident Mukesh could not attend the Chartered Accountants Institute nor could complete his studies. He thus could not pass the examination. Mohan Bahadur, respondent No. 2 herein, was driver of the offending jeep. He was driving the said vehicle during the course of his employment with the appellant, i. e. , Hargo Rubber Industries Private Ltd. Therefore, Mohan Bahadur as well as the present appellant were held liable to pay the compensation.

( 3 ) THE present appellant who was respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal had taken the defence before the Tribunal that Mohan Bahadur was not its employee nor engaged to drive the offending jeep. He had committed a theft of the jeep for which verbal report was lodged with the police. After recording the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Mohan Bahadur was driving the jeep in question with the consent or permission of the owner of the jeep, i. e. ; Hargo Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd.

( 4 ) IN order to prove that the jeep was not roadworthy and that it was not being driven by any authorised person, my attention was drawn to the evidence of Harjit Singh, R 2 W 1. He is the Managing Director of the appellant.