The owner and insurer of a vehicle are liable for the negligent act of the driver, even if the driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle.

R.K. Vijayvargiya, J.

1. This appeal under Section 110-D of Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated 14.6.1976 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar, in Claim Case No. 8 of 1972.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as follows:--Aliyarbeg s/o Nabinoorbeg was the registered owner of motor truck No. MPO-2958. Respondent Nos. 6(a) Yasinkhan and 6(b) Gullukhan are his legal representatives. According to the claimants the said truck was being used for carrying stolen timber from the forest. On 20.12.1971 at about 10 p.m. when Respondent No. 7 was driving the said truck and the stolen timber was being carried, the deceased Ramendrasingh, who was the Forest Ranger, chased the truck on his motor cycle. Ramendrasingh wanted to overtake the motor truck. He gave the required light signal and proceeded ahead. The Respondent No. 7 Majidkhan who was driving the truck first gave side and when the deceased was in the act of overtaking and crossing the truck he steered it in a rash and negligent manner, so that the back portion of the truck dashed against the motor cycle. The result was that the deceased fell down and died on the spot, as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The deceased was 32 years of age at the time of the accident. The claimants who are the widow, daughters, father and mother of the deceased submitted a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs.5 lakhs as compensation, from the owner, driver and insurer of the truck. According to them the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the said truck. The owner and driver of the truck remained ex parte and the claim was contested by the Appellant who is the insurer of the truck. The Appellant denied that the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the truck. The Appellant also denied that the truck was being driven by the Respondent No. 7 at the time of the accident. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the truck but it was not proved that Respondent No. 7 was driving the truck at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, awarded compensation against the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the Appellant. The Tribunal awarded Rs.24,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at 4% per annum from the date of award till payment. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the insurer has preferred this appeal. The claimants have filed cross objections against the award of the Tribunal. They seek enhancement of the amount as also interest on the amount from the date of application at 6% per annum.

3. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the truck by which the accident was caused belonged to Aliyarbeg father of the Respondent Nos. 6(a) Yasinkhan and 6(b) Gullukhan. It is also not in dispute that the said truck was insured with the Appellant at the time of the accident. The first question that arises for determination is whether the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the truck. From the testimony of A.W. 3 Kashersingh who was sitting on the cabin of the truck it is clear that the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the driver in driving the truck. The driver of the truck has not been examined to show how the accident was caused. In the circumstances the Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the truck. The Tribunal, further, held that it was not proved that the Respondent No. 7 was actually driving the truck. The Tribunal, however, held that the Respondent No. 7 was sitting by the side of the driver and he authorised some other person to drive the truck. This also constituted negligence on the par