SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(All) 134

Allahbad High Court
N.U.BEG,R.N.SHARMA
U. P. Government - Appellant
Versus
Ram Milan - Respondent
Decided On : 09/17/1965

Advocates:
Standing Counsel (Sri Kesribir Prasad), for Appellant; S.C. Das, for Respondent No. 1.

Headnote:

NEGLIGENCE - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - MASTER'S LIABILITY FOR SERVANT'S NEGLIGENT ACTS - SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT - DRIVER PERMITTING UNAUTHORIZED PERSON TO DRIVE - LIABILITY OF MASTER.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a passenger in defendant's bus, was injured when the bus, driven by the mechanic, met with an accident. The driver had handed over the steering wheel to the mechanic to test the bus after repairs. The plaintiff sued the defendant, the bus owner, for damages.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the driver's act of entrusting the mechanic with the task of driving the vehicle was an improper mode of performance of his own duty as a driver and was, therefore, an unauthorized mode of acting within the scope of his employment. The court held that the defendant, as the master, was liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff because the damages were a result of the negligent performance of his duty by the driver.

Issues: Whether the master is liable for the tortious acts of his servants, even if the acts were unauthorized.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of vicarious liability, holding that the master is liable for the tortious acts of his servants committed within the scope of their employment, even if the acts were unauthorized. The court reasoned that the driver's act of entrusting the mechanic with the task of driving the vehicle was an improper mode of performance of his own duty as a driver and was, therefore, an unauthorized mode of acting within the scope of his employment.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and allowed the plaintiff's cross-objections, enhancing the damages awarded to him to an amount of Rs. 6,929.

Judgement

N. U. BEG, J. :- This is a first appeal by the U. P. Government which was defendant no. 1 in the trial Court. It arises out of a suit for damages filed by respondent no 1 Ram Milan who was the plaintiff in the trial ourt. Respondent no. 1 Mohd. Rasool and respondent no. 3 Jharkhande were the servants of defendant no. 1, the U. P. Government, and were defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the trial Court. Along with the appeal we have a cross-objection filed by Ram Milan, the plaintiff. This judgment disposes of both the first appeal filed by defendant No. 1 and the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff.

The suit of the plaintiff was based on the allegation that defendant no. 1 had been carrying on motor bus service in the district of Gonda for the last several years, that on the 2nd of June, 1952 a bus belonging to defendant no. 1 left Wazirganj for Gonda at about 130 P. M. The plaintiff was a passenger in the upper class Defendant no. 2 Mohd Rasool was the driver of the said bus, and defendant no. 3 Jharkhande was its mechanic Owing to the negligence, misconduct and wrongful act of defendant no. 1's servants, i.e. Mohd Rasool and Jharkhande, there was an accident on the 2nd of June, 1952, which resulted in serious injuries to the plaintiff on the head, chin, knees and left hand. The bones of the plaintiff's left hand were also broken. He bled profusely. The plaintiff along with other injured persons was brought to the Sadar Hospital at Gonda in an unconscious condition. He regained consciousness after five days. The plaintiff remained an indoor patient in the Sadar Hospital, Gonda. on account of the aforesaid injuries from 2-6-1952 to 10-8-1952.

During this period he could neither attend to his work as a District Board teacher at Wazirgani nor could he look after his house-hold duties and cultivation. The plaintiff had outside treatment also. Subsequently the plaintiff had to get himself admitted in the Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospititals, Lucknow, for his treatment. The plaintiff was admitted there on the 31st of May 1953 and remained there till the 12th of June, 1953. On account of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff he could not join service till the 10th of April, 1953, and was deprived of one of his hands permanently. The plaintiff alleged that he had suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-. He, accordingly, claimed a decree for this amount against all the three defendants.

2. The suit was contested by defendant no. 1 the U. P. Government only even though written statements were filed by all the three defendants. Defendant no. 1 admitted that bus no. 2366 which had met with the accident on the 2nd of June, 1952, belonged to it. It further admitted that defendant No. 2 Mohd. Rasool was the driver of the said bus, that defendant No. 3 Jharkhande was its mechanic, and that both defendants 2 and 3 were its servants. The main plea raised by defendant No. 1 was that defendant No. 3, i.e. Jharkhande, was merely a mechanic and was not authorised by defendant No. 1 to drive the bus. Defendant No. 1 was, therefore, not liable for any act done by defendant No. 3. The version of defendant No. 1 was that the bus had developed some machine trouble at Lakarmandi and defendant No. 3 was deputed to remove the defects of the bus. In order to test the soundness of the machinery of the said bus defendant No. 3 took the steering wheel in his own hands from Wazirganj without any authority, and the bus met with the accident when he was driving it.

3. The case set up by defendants nos. 2 and 3 in their written statements was that defendant no. 8 was a mechanic employed in the U. P. Government Roadways and was deputed to remove the defects of bus no. 2366, that the aforesaid bus had started from Lakarmandi on 2-6-1952 for Gonda and defendant no. 3 was also coming back to Gonda by the same bus and that when the bus reached Wazirganj it again developed some trouble and did not start. The driver, defendant no. 2, reported the



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top