An employer cannot be held liable for a vehicular accident if they were neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle, emphasizing established principles of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by appellant (respondent No. 2 before the learned Tribunal below) against the impugned award dated 30.07.2019, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., in MACT Case No. 0000019/2016, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners (respondents No. 1 to 6 herein) was allowed and respondent No. 2 (appellant herein), being employer of the deceased, was held liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,26,000/-, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition, till the deposit of the amount, to the petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”) before the learned Tribunal below, seeking compensation on account of death of Joginder Pal, who died in an accident while travelling in a vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-06A-3099 on 10.10.2015 and bringing stones to Kachin Ghati, where respondent No. 2 had taken contract of constructing the retaining wall. It has been averred in the petition that the driver of the vehicle was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and could not control the same, as a result of which, it met with an accident and rolled down about 30 meters out of the road towards nallah and deceased died on the spot. Consequently, FIR No. 90/2015, dated 10.10.2015 was registered at Police Station, Kumarsain. As per the petitioners, the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of his death and was employed by respondent No. 2, as a driver, on a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- besides this, he was earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. It has further been averred in the petition that they incurred more than Rs. 50,000/- on carrying the dead body from the place of accident to CHC, Kumarsain and thereafter to their native place for funeral. Hence, the petitioners filed the petition seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-.

3. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1-owner of the vehicle, preliminary objection qua maintainability has been taken. It has been pleaded that at the time of accident, respondent No. 3 was not driving the vehicle in question, but the vehicle in question was being driven by one Harish @ Raj Kumar Nepali. It has further been pleaded that accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and in fact, the road suddenly gave way, as a result of which, the vehicle rolled down 30 meters from the road. It has also been pleaded that the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No. 4. On merits, it has been admitted that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle from Karsog and was carrying stones. It has been averred that during investigation, the Investigating Agency has found that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and as such, a cancellation report in the matter was prepared and submitted to the Court of ld. ACJM, Rampur Bushahr.

4. In the reply filed by respondent No. 3-driver, preliminary objections qua maintainability and non-joinder of necessary parties have been taken. On merits, it has been admitted that on the date of accident, the deceased was travelling in the vehicle with his stones, but it has been denied that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It has been averred that during investigation, Investigating Agency has found no rashness and negligence on his part.

5. In the reply filed by respondent No. 4-Insurance Company, preliminary objections qua maintainability, collusion and that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms an