Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing K. Jayaraja Ballal vs Alfred Quadres And Anr. on 8 June, 1978

Dwarka Prasad Jhunjhunwala And Anr. vs Shushila Devi And Ors. on 2 February, 1983

8. On the facts of the present case it is obvious that here the driver had not permitted anybody to drive the vehicle. He might not even be expecting such an eventuality, but nonetheless his omission in not taking the precautions just mentioned above would be a negligent act (See Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. , and K. Jayaraja Ballal v. Alfred Quadres and Anr.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prabbavati vs Anton Francis Nazarath on 11 November, 1980

14. It is no doubt trues that R. W. I has #posed that the cleaner took away the vehicle without his knowledge. He has deposed that his regular driver was Balappa. He has not cared to examine Balappa. It is a matter of common knowledge that the vehicle could not be started without the ignition-key. Unless Balappa gave the ignition-key, Yellapa could not take the vehicle. There is an initial presumption that this vehicle was driven for and on behalf of the owner. In the instant case, it is evident that the ignition-key was given by Balappa to Yellappa. There are a number of decided cases to show that if the driver allows an unauthorised person without competence to drive the vehicle, it will be a matter of negligence on the part of the driver in the course of his employment and the owner becomes vicariously liable; so also the insurance company (vide K. Jayaraja Ralfal v. Alfred Quadres, . That is what has happened in the instant case. In all probability, it is the driver who allowed the unauthorised person Yellappa to drive the vehicle in question. Hence, he has committed', negligence in the course of his employment driver was not only to drive the vehicle but also he was entrusted with the vehicle. It' was his duty as part of his employment to maintain the vehicle in safe condition without allowing anybody else to tamper with it. Therefore, the fact that Yellappa drove the vehicle in. question becomes only a circumstance to, prove negligence. The regular -driver is, Balappa who is a licensed driver. Hence, we are satisfied that both the owner and the insurer would be liable to pay the compensation. We set aside the finding of the Tribunal to that extent.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1