Mere ownership and permission to drive a vehicle are not enough to establish vicarious liability of the owner. The driver must be using the vehicle for the owner's purpose under a delegation of task or duty.

S.S.Sodhi, J.

1. The accident here was between a cycle and a motor-cycle, resulting in the death of the cyclist - Jagdish Chander Bharti, who later died in hospital on account of the injuries sustained. This happened at Yamuna Nagar on September 22, 1978,

2. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident here had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of Sukhdev Singh, the driver of the motor-cycle. A sum of Rs. 36,000 was awarded as compensation to the claimants, they being the widow and children of Jagdish Chander Bharti deceased.

3. Assailed in appeal now, is the finding recorded on the issue of negligence as also the liability fastened upon Trilok Singh - the owner of the motor-cycle, for the compensation awarded. The contention raised being that the deceased had died as a result of the injuries sustained on falling from his cycle when he suddenly turned it and not on account of the motor-cycle hitting into it. As regards Tirlok Singh, the case pleaded was that he was in Dubai at the time of the accident and Sukhdev Singh - his younger brother, had taken the motor-cycle without his knowledge or consent and he could not, therefore, be held vicariously liable for the accident that occurred.

4. The case pleaded by the claimants was that Jagdish Chander Bharti, deceased, was proceeding towards his Transport Company on cycle when the motor-cycle came from behind and hit into his cycle as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. It was said that the motor-cycle was being driven at a fast speed and in a rash negligent manner when this happened.

5. The driver of the motor-cycle, Sukhdev Singh, on the other hand, came forth with the version that Jagdish Chander Bharti had suddenly came on to the road from an approach road and then abruptly turned to his right when somebody had shouted to him to get a truck unloaded. Seeing this, he (Sukhdev Singh) had to immediately apply his brakes as a consequence of which he fell off the motor-cycle and it was then that the cycle of Jagdish Chander Bharti came and hit into the fallen motor-cycle as a result of which he too fell down and sustained a head injury.

6. Further, it was said that after this accident, he (Sukhdev Singh) signalled to a truck standing nearby which then came and took him and Jagdish Chander Bharti and left them at the gate of the Civil Hospital, Yamunana Nagar.

7. The accident, as per the case of the claimants was deposed to by A.W.2 Madan Lal Taneja, who stated that he was an eye-witnesses to it. According to him, Jagdish Chander Bharti was on his correct side of the road when the motor-cycle came from behind at a very fast speed and struck against his cycle, knocking him down unconscious. It was further his testimony that it was he and Om Parkash who then removed Jagdish Chander Bharti to the Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar in a truck where he died in the early hours of the next morning.

8. When the driver of the motor cycle R.W.6 - Sukhdev Singh came to the witness box, he had a somewhat different story to narrate than one given in his return, namely, that when he suddenly applied the brakes on seeing Jagdish Chander abruptly turn his cycle, he became unconscious "on seeing the situation".

9. He made a categoric statement that his motor-cycle did not strike the cyclist nor did he made any mention of the cycle hitting the motor-cycle as had been stated in the written statement. The two witnesses examined in support, namely, R.W.4 - Tara Singh and R.W.5 - Charanjit Singh also did not depose to any collision between the cycle and the motor-cycle.

10. The Tribunal rightly relied upon the testimony of A.W.2 - Madan Lal considering the fact that it was on his statement that the first information report relating to this accident was recorded, which was consistent with what he had deposed in court. Further it was he who had taken the deceased to the hospital and there is also his unchallenged testimony that he had come with the police from the ho