The owner of a motor vehicle is not vicariously liable for its unauthorized use during its custody with an independent contractor for the purpose of repair, etc.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether the vicarious liability of the owner of a manor vehicle can be extended to cover even its unauthorised use by a stranger during the vehicle s entrustment to a workshop for repairs is the meaningful question which arises for determination in this appeal under Cl. X of the Letters Patent.

2. On February 23, 1968, at about mid-day Mangal Singh, injured respondent, whilst going on his bicycle, within the town of Moga, collided with truck No. PNF 8078 and suffered serious injuries on his person. He was immediately removed to the Civil Hospital, Moga, where the medical witness found that apart from other injuries, the whole of the outer side of the right leg and the right thigh were abraded and contused and bones of the right thigh and right ankle were fractured. A case was also registered against the driver of the vehicle at police station, Moga. Mangal Singh was later removed to the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh for better treatment for the compound fracture of the lower and right femur and compound fracture of right medial malleolus. He was discharged from the hospital partially cured.

3. Mangal Singh, respondent, preferred an application for compensation for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- for injuries and loss of his earnings due to the disability caused thereby.

4. In contesting the claim application, the appellant, Devinder Singh Brar, pleaded that he had completely entrusted his truck for repairs to the Behon Workshop at Moga, which apparently was the proprietary concern of Jarnail Singh, respondent. It was his express stand that he had never authorised its driving on the road either by the said Jarnail Singh or anyone of his employees. He further took up the plea that the truck at the time of the accident was being driven at a low speed and in any case the accident was caused by the contributory negligence of Mangal Singh, respondent, who suddenly swerved his bicycle towards one side.

5. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, with which the truck was insured, also raised the same pleas which were taken by the appellant who is the owner of the truck. They further contested the amount of claim as being exaggerated and conjectural.

6. Tara Singh, respondent, brother of Jarnail Singh, respondent, in his written statement, denied that he was driving the truck at the time of the accident and in support of his stand he further pleaded that on the day in question because of the inflammation of his foot he was under the treatment of Dr. Sham Lal Nayyar.

7. The positive stand taken by Jarnail Singh was that he was driving the truck at a normal speed on the G.T. Road in Moga and was coming from Jagroan. Mangal Singh, respondent, who was coming from the opposite side, took a quick and sudden turn towards the left when the truck approached and despite his best attempts to avoid a collision the rear left wheel of the truck struck the bicycle of Mangal Singh who fell down. He pleaded that he immediately stopped the truck and removed Mangal Singh to the Civil Hospital in another truck. He reiterated his brother Tara Sirigh s stand that on the day of the accident the latter was under the treatment of Dr. Sham Lal Nayyar.

8. On the aforesaid pleadings the following issues were struck by the Tribunal:-

-

1. Whether at the time of this accident truck No. P.N.F. 8078 was being driven - (a) by Tara Singh /(b) by Jarnail Singh?

2. Whether Mangal Singh sustained injuries due to negligent driving of the truck?

3. Whether the injuries were caused to Mangal Singh by his own contributory negligence and what is its effect?

4. Whether there was suspension of the operation of the insurance policy at the time when this accident involving injuries to Mangal Singh occurred? If so, what is its effect?

5. In case issue No. 2 is proved in favour of the petitioner, to what amount of compensation he is entitled and from whom?

6. Relief.

9. On issue No. 1, the Tribunal came to the firm finding that it was Tar