Krishna And Ors. vs Himachal Pradesh Public Works ... on 23 December, 1994
Why did he not ask Roop Chand to stop driving the truck, if it is accepted that it had been entrusted to Santosh Lal on that day. There is no evidence pointing out that he started driving the vehicle immediately before the accident. Rather, it is in evidence that he was carrying material for metalling the road at Theog Bazar from Matiana, located at a distance of about 16 km. The accident took place at 3 p.m. It can legitimately be concluded that Roop Chand was driving the vehicle on the day of occurrence under the very nose of his employers and he was not prevented from doing so, in case he had no authority from them to drive it. So, the contention that he had no such authority and, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not responsible for the accident and consequently for the payment of compensation, is totally misconceived and is, therefore, rejected [See: Putchala Achayamma v. Pelava Ramakrishna Rao 1988 ACJ 951 (AP); Sampath Reddy v. Gudda Meddi Suchi Venkatamma 1990 ACJ 626 (AP); State of Punjab v. Raj Rani 1987 ACJ 333 (P&H); Inderjeet Singh and Co. v. Kamal Prakash Pawar 1989 ACJ 132 (Bombay); and Motor and General Finance (India) Ltd. v. Mary Mony 1991 ACJ 101 (Kerala)].