The owner of a vehicle is vicariously liable for the tortious act of the driver, even if the driver is not in the employment of the owner.

A.G. Qureshi, J.

1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas, in Claim Case No. 16 of 1976 dated 21st August, 1981, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted a claim petition before the Tribunal on the allegations that in the intervening night of 11.3.1976 and 12.3.1976 deceased Devaji was travelling in tractor No. MPU 7093 attached with trolley No. MPU 7176 belonging to the appellant No. 1, Sajjan Singh, which was being used for transport of manure belonging to appellant No. 2, Saitan Singh and was being driven by appellant No. 3, Bahadur Singh. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 6, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. While travelling on the aforesaid tractor and trolley, as a labourer for lifting the manure, the deceased fell from the tractor and was crushed under its wheels. The accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver Bahadur Singh, appellant No. 3. In view of the age of the deceased and the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 being dependent on the deceased, a claim for Rs. 50,000/- was made as compensation from the three appellants and respondent No. 6.

3. The claim was resisted by appellant No. 1 on the ground that the aforesaid tractor No. MPU 7093 was not involved in the accident at all. It was actually deputed for work of block development, Bagli and was in the custody of a regularly employed driver Devi Singh. It was also averred that as Devi Singh has not been made a party, the petition is not tenable. It was denied that Bahadur Singh was its driver and that he drove the tractor belonging to the appellant No. 1 at any time. The appellant Saitan Singh denied the claim on the ground that he did not take the vehicle on hire from appellant No. 1 for transportation of manure. He also denied the fact that Devaji was engaged by him as a labourer for transporting the manure. Appellant No. 3, Bahadur Singh, stated that he was never employed by appellant No. 1 on his tractor and he never transported the manure by the tractor as its driver and that no accident was caused due to any rash or negligent act by him.

4. On the aforesaid pleadings the learned Tribunal framed nine issues to decide the claim petition and held that Devaji died on account of the rash and negligent driving by Bahadur Singh while working for appellant No. 2, Saitan Singh. It also held that the tractor in question was given on hire to the Block Development Officer, Hatpiplya, on the date of the accident, but it does not have any effect on the merits of the case. Devaji was not travelling free of charge on the trolley in question, but was employed by Saitan Singh as a labourer. It also held that the insurance company is not liable for paying the compensation. Thereafter considering the evidence on record an award of Rs. 14,000/- was given against the three appellants. Hence this appeal.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Verma, strenuously argues that the finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the improper appreciation of the evidence. There is no evidence at all on record that the tractor belonging to appellant No. 1 was involved in the accident and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 supports the finding of the learned Tribunal and the counsel for respondent No. 6, Mr. Dhupar, also supports the finding of the Tribunal on the ground that the insurance company has rightly been absolved of the liability to pay the compensation.

7. It is not disputed before me that the deceased died due to the injuries received by him and the injuries were caused due to being crushed under the wheels of a vehicle. Now, in the light of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties it has to be seen whether the Tribunal rightly arrived at a conclusion that the accident was caused due to the vehicle belonging to