The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee can be held liable for damages caused while acting within the scope of their employment, and the employer can also be held liable for the employee's actions within the scope of employment.

1. After the mid-night of January 5/6,1959, the 4th defendant drove the lorry KLR.1190, into the plaintiff's restaurant, Radhakrishna Coffee Club, Trichur, breaking its front shutters' and damaging a frigidier, show-cases, almirahs, tables, chairs, tube lights etc. therein. The 1st defendant was the owner of the lorry and the 2nd defendant is his brother who was in possession, control and management of the lorry. 3rd defendant was its cleaner. The 4th defendant was the mechanic employed by the 2nd defendant to do minor repairs to this lorry and another belonging to himself. At the time of the accident, the 4th defendant was taking the lorry on a test-run after fastening its steering column to the foundation with a new bolt; and the 3rd defendant was beside him in the lorry. The mahazar, Ext. P. 8, prepared by the Sub-Inspector of the Town Police station, Trichur, shows that the foot-path in front of the restaurant is 11 ft. 9 inches in width and 9 inches higher than the concrete road which is 47 ft. broad, that the floor of the restaurant is 6 inches higher than the foot-path and that the lorry went 11 ft. inside the hall of the restaurant, causing the aforesaid damages. The plaintiff claimed damages Rs. 8,219, from defendants 1, 2 and 4. The courts below have assessed the damages at Rs. 3,813 87p. and decreed it against the 4th defendant alone, exonerating defendants 1 to 3. In this, second appeal the plaintiff seeks to fix the liability on defendants 1 and 2 as well.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement denied the defendants 3 and 4 to have been their employees and alleged the 4th defendant to have been an employee in a neighbouring workshop run by pw. 2 and him to have taken out the lorry from their garage without authority or permission when the accident was caused. The 3rd defendant in his written statement supported defendants 1 and 2. The 4th defendant admitted that he was, from 1st January 1959, a paid employee under defendants 1 and 2 but denied to have driven the lorry or caused the accident. The Subordinate Judge found

"that the lorry belongs to the 1st defendant and that 2nd defendant was looking after the management of the lorry that the 3rd defendant was the cleaner of the lorry and that the 4th defendant was the blacksmith-mechanic working under the 2nd defendant.

That there was negligence and rashness on the part of the 4th defendant who was then driving the lorry is beyond dispute. The 3rd defendant was only sitting beside the 4th defendant.

The question arises whether the 4th defendant was acting in the course of his employment. Even the plaintiff admits that the 4th defendant was only a fitter employed in the workshop. He had no licence to drive any motor vehicles. The duty of a mechanic is only to make the necessary repairs. It is not in the course of his employment and he is not engaged to test a lorry by driving it.

The 3rd defendant was the cleaner and the 4th defendant was only a fitter. It is no part of their duties to drive the lorry, through the public streets even for a test after repairs. Driving is the duty entrusted to the driver and he alone is competent to drive the lorry. Defendants 3 and 4 were not acting in the course of their employment, in driving the lorry through the public streets. In any case therefore defendants 1

and 2 cannot be made liable. The 3rd defendant is also not liable. It follows that the 4th defendant alone is liable for the damages."

On appeal by the plaintiff, the Additional District Judge has held:

"It has been proved conclusively by the evidence in this case that on the night of the 5th January 1959 lorry bearing registration No. KLR.1190 ran into the plaintiff's restaurant and caused damage to his articles kept therein and also caused injuries to some of his employees, one of whom died as a result of the injuries sustained. The evidence further shows clearly that the lorry at that time was being driven by the 4th defendant. The 3rd defendant is the cle