The principle of respondent superior or vicarious liability can be applied to a vehicle owner where the negligence is the of the owner's servant or of the servant of the owner's agent. The doctrine cannot be extended and applied to a case where the negligence is that of a driver employed by an independent contractor.

JUDGEMENT :- The facts giving rise to this civil miscellaneous appeal may be briefly stated. The University of Madurai had obtained the State Government's permission to raise building for staff quarters at Madurai. The actual work of construction of the buildings and their supervision were with the Directorate of Technical Education, Technical Division, Madras which is a department of the State Government. Rajapathi, the appellant in this civil miscellaneous a peal, is an Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Madras. It was part of his duty to supervise the construction of the staff quarters in the Madurai University, for he was attached, in that capacity, to the office of the Directorate of Technical Education. For going on official inspection duty, the appellant was given the use of a jeep belonging to the University. The driver of the jeep, however, was an employee of the State Government under the control of the Director of Technical Education, Madras.

2. One day at about 7 a.m. the appellant travelled in this jeep to go to some place in connection with his inspection duty. The vehicle was driven by the department's driver. On the way, the vehicle met with an accident. The appellant fell from the jeep and sustained injuries. He was treated in a hospital as an inpatient. The accident left him with a disability in his right hand.

3. The appellant thereupon moved the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli, for compensation under different heads such as medical expenses for treatment of the injury, pain and suffering, loss of earnings etc. He sought to make liable (i) the Madurai University who was the owner of the jeep; (ii) the driver of the jeep and (iii) the Insurance Company who had covered third party risk for the vehicle. These were the only respondents to the appellant's claim application before the tribunal. The appellant did not implead or seek any relief against the State Government or the Directorate of Technical Education as the employer of the jeep driver.

4. The Claims Tribunal on enquiry found that the accident occurred owing to the negligence of the jeep driver. The tribunal computed the quantum of compensation at Rs. 9734 in the aggregate under the several heads under which damages were claimed. The Tribunal held that appellant was entitled to this amount. In fixing the liability for payment, however, the Tribunal held that the University and the Insurance Company were not liable The award was made as against the jeep driver alone.

5. In making the award in the manner aforesaid, the Tribunal accepted the University's contention to the effect that the jeep driver was not their employee, but a servant of the State Government, and hence they cannot be made liable for damages on any principle of vicarious liability, even though the vehicle which was involved in the accident belonged to them. The question was posed before the Tribunal as to whether the Directorate of Technical Education was an agent of the University, so that the fault of the driver may be visited on the University as that of the agent's servant The Tribunal, however, held that the Directorate of Technical Education was not the University's agent, but quite an independent contractor. On the basis of this finding the Tribunal also dismissed the appellant's claim against the Insurance Company.

6. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the correctness of the Tribunal's finding as to the jural relationship between the Madurai University and the Director of Technical Education. This question is a mixed question of fact and law, which means that on the factual findings the proper legal inference has to be drawn. A few reported cases were cited in the course of argument, but the basic question whether the Directorate of Technical Education is the University's agent or an independent contractor has to be determined primarily on facts. The evidence before the Tribunal was that the construction of buildings was done purely on the responsibili