Dave, J.—This is a first appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for damages arising out of an alleged tort. It is directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated l4tn April, 1954. The appellant No. 1 Mt. Vidyawati is widow of one Jagdishlal Kayasth, while appellant No. 2 Mt. Girjawati is her minor daughter. The deceased Jagdishlal was resident of Udaipur and working as a teacher. The respondent No. 1, Lokumal, was a motor driver in the employment of the State of Rajasthan, respondent No, 2.

2. The appellants case was that on 11th February, 1951 at about 4 p. m., Jagdishlal was going on duty in connection with census work and he was walking on the footpath by the side of a public road leading from Hathi Pole to Delhi Gate in Udaipur City. At the time, respondent No. 1, who was driving a jeep Car No. RUM 49, belonging to the State of Rajasthan suddenly came from behind; he was rash and negligent in driving that jeep on the footpath whereby he knocked down Jagdishlal, causing him multiple injuries, including fracture of the skull and backbone. Jagdishlal was immediately removed to the Hospital and treated there, but he could not regain consciousness which he had lost immediately after the occurrence and ultimately he died on 14th of February, 1951, on account of the said injuries. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed Rs. 25,000/- as damages from Lokumal and the Mate of Rajasthan.

3. Both the respondents contested the suit in the trial court on several grounds on account of which as many as 10 issues were framed. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the trial court found that jeep Car No. RUM 49 belonged to the State and it was being used by the Collector, Udaipur. Respondent No. 1 Lokumal was a driver in the employ of the State. He had taken the said vehicle to Royal Auto Engineers Shop for repairs. He got it back at about 4 p. m He and one Noor Mohammad were silting therein and they were going from Hathitpol to Delhi Darwaja. A bus was going in front of this vehicle. The respondent waned to overtake it. The driver of the bus had given way to respondent No. 1 but at the place where respondeat No. 1 wanted to cross the bus, there was not enough space and so this driver took the jeep on the footpath and knooked down Jagdishlal. It has passed a decree for Rs. 15,000/- against respondent No 1 in savour of the appellants. The suit against the State of Rajasthan has, however, been dismissed, it is against this judgment and decree that the present appeal has been filed.

4. It may be mentioned at the outset that respondent No. 1 has not filed any appeal in this Court. The appellants objection is two fold. Their first contention is that this decree should also have been passed against the State of Rajasthan since it is vicariously responsible for the rash and negligent act of its employee. Their next contention is that their claim has been wrongly out down by the trial court. It has already been mentioned above that the appellants had tiled a suit for Rs. 25,000/- in the trial court; but they have remained content with fixing the valuation of the appeal at Rs. 19,999/-.

5. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has contested the finding of the trial court regarding the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No.1. It is further contended that the State of Rajasthan was at any rate not responsible in tort, as claimed by the appellants.

6. It is not contested that jeep car bearing No. RUM 49 belonged to the State of Rajasthan or that it was placed at the disposal of the Collector for his use or that it was being driven on the day of occurrence by respondent No. 1 or that Jagdishlal was knocked down thereby and he died as a result of the injuries which he sustained on account of the accident.

7. The first point which, therefore, calls for determination is whether it was on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 that Jagdishlal sustained his injuries. This need not detain us very lon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document