Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Kailash Nath Kothari & Ors. Etc. Etc on 3 September, 1997
However, Ranwad Parisar Pratisthan had not taken any amount of hire
or reward from the labourers. In paragraph no. 23 it is stated that Ranwad
Parisar Pratisthan is registered under the Public Trust Act and its object was to
help weaker sections and farmers and labourers and, as part of the same,
opponent Ranwad Parisar Pratisthan had done (undertaken) the work to
carry labourers alongwith their goods to their villages and, for that purpose
the trust had also incurred some expenses. It is argued that these statements
in paragraph no. 23 clearly indicate that at the behest of Ranwad Parisar
Pratisthan the labourers were carried in the truck and the trust has also spent
some amount on such transport. But even assuming that this was done by
Ranwad Parisar Pratisthan, still question is whether Ranwad Parisar Pratisthan
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:04:04 :::
21
would be in a position of owner and whether the ratio of Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation vs. Kailash Nath Kothari (cited supra) applies. In
my consideration, these admissions by themselves are not sufficient to hold
that the truck was under control and command of opponent Ranwad
Parisar Pratisthan or the Sugar factory. We cannot say that the ratio of the
case referred above applies to the facts of the case. In my considered
opinion, it is not proved that the vicarious liability shifted from appellant to
Ranwad Parisar Pratisthan or Sugar factory.