Owner of the bus held liable to pay.

RATNAM J.

This appeal, at the instance of the owner of a bus, is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, in C.P. No. 346 of 1978. The first respondent had been carrying on the business of running a cycle shop and selling spare parts under the name and style of " Golden Cycle Stores " at No. 87B, Lawrence Road, Cuddalore-2, just opposite to the bus stand at Cuddalore. For the purpose of lending cycles on hire, she had purchased 9 cycles in all and it was the practice to park the cycles in front of the shop during night time. On June 17, 1978, at about 9.50 p.m. the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant as well as the conductor had left the bus with the key of the bus in position and had gone to take their meal. During their absence, the bus in question was started and driven by one Sengodan in a rash and negligent manner, with the result that the bus came out of the exit gate of the bus stand and went straight into the shop of the first respondent and stopped after hitting the shop and causing damage to the building, rolling shutter, spare parts as well as the cycles kept there. The first respondent stated that she sustained damages only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant and that, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay her compensation in a sum of Rs. 12, 810 comprised of (1) a sum of Rs. 3, 000 towards the value of the 9 cycles, (2) Rs. 3, 500 towards damages to rolling shutters, (3) Rs. 1, 500 towards the expenses incurred for repairing the top portion of the building and the name board, (4) Rs. 150 for provision of tube lights; (5) Rs. 1, 500 for damages to the show-case, spare parts, etc., and (6) Rs. 3, 160 towards loss of income between June 18, 1978, and November 27, 1978, on an average of Rs. 20 per day. Resisting this claim of the first respondent, the appellant stated that the driver of the bus had parked the bus inside the bus stand and had gone out for taking his meal and there was no separate ignition key for starting the bus. At that time, Sengodan (who was impleaded as the third respondent in C.P. No. 346 of 1978), who was not in any manner connected with the appellant and was not expressly or impliedly authorised either by the driver or the conductor of the bus, started the vehicle and had involved it in an accident so that neither the driver nor the conductor nor even the appellant would be in any manner responsible for that accident. In other words, according to the appellant, the unauthorised driving of the vehicle by Sengodan would not enable the first respondent to claim compensation by way of damages against the appellant, but that such a claim will have to be made only against him who drove the vehicle in that manner.The second respondent, insurance company, in its statement took the stand that the driver as well as conductor of the bus had left the bus in the bus stand and had gone out for the purpose of taking their meal and that taking advantage of their absence, the bus had been driven by Sengodan without any permission and without holding a valid driving licence for driving the vehicle and that was responsible for the accident and therefore, as the vehicle had been driven by an unauthorised person, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company. It was also the further plea of the insurance company that Sengodan, who drove the bus, was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine and that in any event the liability of the insurance company in respect of damage to property cannot exceed Rs. 2, 000.

Sengodan, who, according to the first respondent, drove the vehicle was impleaded as the third respondent in the court below and the driver of the vehicle as the fourth respondent. But both of them remained ex parte.

Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, on behalf of the first respondents, exhibits A-1 to A-5 were marked and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined, while on behalf of the appellant, exhibit