Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs Smt. Pushpa Rani And Ors. on 9 September, 1986
Equivalent citations: [1988]64COMPCAS141(P&H)
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodht, J.
1. The challenge in the appeal here is to the award of Rs. 45,000 as compensation to the widow and daughter of Mohinder Kumar Gupta, the deceased.
2. According to the claimants, the deceased was travelling in truck PUI 2495, when, in trying to avoid a buffalo, it went off the road and overturned. Mohinder Kumar Gupta is said to have died as a result of the injuries received in this accident. This happened on August 4, 1978, at about 5-45 p.m. on the Ambala-Jagadhri Road.
3. Both the driver and the truck-owner accepted the fact that a buffalo struck against the truck while it was coming from Ambala to Jagadhri, but denied that there was any fault of the truck-driver. It was also denied that the deceased was travelling in the truck at that time.
4. The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of P.W. 4, Prem Chand, who deposed that he too was travelling in the ill-fated truck at the time of the accident. He narrated a version in consonance with the case set up by the claimants. According to him, it was raining and the bus was being driven at a very high speed and the driver could not control it when a buffalo and a calf came on to the road. The truck then went off the road and turned turtle. It was then that Mohinder Kumar Gupta deceased sustained injuries as a result of which he died later. The truck driver R.W.-2, Mohinder Singh. when he appeared in the witness box, not only denied that the deceased was not travelling in his truck, but also that his truck was ever involved in any accident on that date. His stand here is clearly contrary to that put forth in his written statement. No wonder, therefore, that the Tribunal did not accept his testimony.
5. As regards P.W.-4, Prem Chand, it was sought to be contended that his evidence did not deserve to be accepted as he did not suffer any injury in the accident nor did he make any report of it to the police. A reading of his statement would, however, show that he deposed to having received minor injuries. It is no doubt true that he did not report the matter to the police, but at the same time, despite the cross-examination he was subjected to, the truck-owner and driver were not able to bring on record any material or circumstance to create any doubt in the veracity of his statement. He was not shown to be in any manner interested in the deceased. His testimony was clear and straight and thus clearly worthy of acceptance. The finding on the issue of negligence thus warrants no interference in appeal.
6. The quantum of compensation was not questioned in appeal. The effort here was to seek to absolve the truck-owner from vicarious liability for the accident, but in view of the recent judgment of the Full Bench Pirthi Singh v. Binda Ram, [1986] 2 PLR 162 ; [1987] 62 Comp Cas 150, it is now settled that if the accident occurred when the driver was acting in the course of his employment, the owner would be liable even if he acted against the express instructions of the owner or in violation of the rules framed under the statute. Such being the law, there is clearly no escape from vicarious liability for the truck-owner.
7. The insurance company was clearly not liable as the deceased was not travelling in the truck in pursuance of any contract of employment. This again is a matter covered by the binding precedent provided by the judgment of the Full Bench in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurdev Kaur [1967] 37 Comp Cas 577.
8. In the result, both the appeals are hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500 (one set only).