The liability of an employer to compensate his servant for an injury sustained by him in the performance of his duty is not absolute and is dependent on proof of negligence either on the part of the employer or his servant.

1. The circumstances giving to this appeal are as follows:-

Shri V. K. Kalia respondent was at the material time posted as Superintendent of police, Guedaspur. A government jeep was supplied to him for official use. It was being maintained at Government expense. The tyres of this jeep became worn out. Shri v. K. Kalia, therefore, on the 7th June, 1966 wrote a letter to the controller of stores, Punjab, chandigarh, that inter alia, some tyres and tubes for government jeep and other transport under his charge were urgently required by him. The controller was requested to intimate the amount involved so that sanction of the competent authority to purchase those articles might be obtained. He followed this by a reminder, dated 23-6-1966, requesting the controller to make necessary arrangements for the supply of types and tubes at an early date. The controller of stores, in reply sent the letter, dated 24-6-1966, requesting the respondent to send his demand in the new prescribed from the controller of printing and stationary, Punjab. He added that that further action would be taken on hearing on hearing from him (respondent).

2. On the 20th July, 1966 Shri Kalia proceeded in the Government jeep no. PNP-15 registered in the name of Superintendent of police, Gurdaspur, on official duty, to Pathankot. The jeep was driven by Constable Shivcharan Dass No. 43. It was raining at about 6.45 P. M. when the jeep was on the road near village Paniar, it skidded and overturned, as a result on which Shri V. K. Kalia received injuries. His right clavical bone was fractured . He remained in plaster for 6 weeks suffering intense pain. Mr. V. K. Kalia, therefore made an application to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab chandiaarh, claiming rs. 5.000/- as compensation. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the worn out tyres of the government vehicle, which were not replaced by the appellant-State, despite repeated requests, in time. At the time of the accident it was raining and the road was wet; consequently, the vehicle skidded and overturned.

3. The application was opposed by the state of Punjab through its secretary in the home department. In its written statement, the state denied its liability to pay any compensation, It was added that the officer had taken out the jeep on the road against the instructions of the Inspector-General of police, and that the superintendent of police, Gurdaspur, being himself the registered owner of the vehicle, could not claim compensation against himself.

4. The Tribunal framed these issues:-

1. Was the accident due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle or due to any defect in the vehicle involved in the accident?

2. What is the quantum of compensation due if any and and from whom?

3. Is not the claimant entitled to any compensation?

4. Is the government not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant?

5. after recording the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal found:-

"The accident no doubt took place because the tyres were worn out and had become unserviceable and the driver was not to blame as it was raining that day and the tyres slipped, but the driver was negligent in the performance of his duties as he did take the defective vehicle on the road and did not inform his officer about its unserviceable that day. The accident was, therefore, both due to the negligence of the driver as well as due to the defect of the tyres. The respondents have also admitted that requisition had been made to the controller of Stores by the applicant much before the accident for the supply of new tyres. Had they been supplied prior to the accident, it would not have occurred."

6. The two-pronged issue No. 1 was thus decided entirely in favour of the claimant. The remaining issues were also decided against the state. In the result Rs. 4,000/- were awarded as compensation under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to the claimant against the appellant