Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977
When once the evidence of P.W. 4 is accepted, it is to be held that Sampath Reddy drove the vehicle and caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving of the vehicle resulting in the death of G. Komiraiah, the deceased, who was coming on the extreme left side of the road on a cycle. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal below that the accident has occurred as are sult of rash and negligent driving of Sampath Reddy is confirmed and Sampath Reddy is liable for the payment of the damages. The next question is whether the Corporation is vicariously liable for the negligent act on the part of its driver in keeping the vehicle at a public place, unattended to violating the statutory provisions u/s. 84 of the M.V. Act. Sri Harinath, the learned Counsel has cited a decision in Minu B. Mehta v. Balikrishna Ramachandra Nayan, 1977 Ace CJ 118: Therein, the Supreme Court held that
The liability of the owner of the cars to compensate the victim in a car accident due to the negligent driving of his servant is based on the law of tort. Regarding the negligence of the servant the owner is made liable on the basis of vicarious liability. Before the master could be made liable it is necessary to prove that the servant was acting during the course of his employment and that he was negligent. The number of the vehicles on the road increased phenomenally leading to increase in road accidents. To remedy the defect various steps were taken. The Indian Law introduced provisions relating to compulsory insurance in respect of third party insurance by introducing Chapter VIII of the Act. Before a person can be made liable to pay compensation for any injuries and damage which have been caused by his action it is necessary that the person damaged or injured be able to establish that he has some cause of action against the party responsible. Causes of action may arise out of actions for wrongs under the common law or for breaches of duties laid down by statutes. In order to succeed in an action for negligence the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant had in the circumstances a duty to take care and that duty was owed by him to the plaintiff, and that (2) there was a breach of that duty and that as a result of the breach damage was suffered by the plaintiff. The master also becomes liable for the conduct of the servant when the servant is proved to have acted negligently in the course of his employment. Apart from it in common law the master is not liable for as it is often said that owner of a motor car does not become liable because of his owning a motor car.
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 1 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Venkatachalam vs Sundarambal Ammal And Anr. on 14 February, 1983
In Venkatachalam v. Sundarambal Ammal, 1983 Acc CJ 513 : Ratnam X, had considered similar questions. There in the contention of the owner of the bus that the third-party was not connected with him as he was not authorised to drive the vehicle and that there was no relationship of master and servant between him and servant and that, therefore, the owner is not liable for the tortuous act committed by the third-party, was negatived by the learned Judge. It was held that the driver was negligent in not taking necessary precautions in taking away the ignition key so as to rule out the possibility of somebody meddling with the bus and as such the owner is vicariously liable for the damages and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applied. I respectfully agree with the learned Judge. It is to be seen that Under Section 84 of M.V. Act, there was a statutory duty cast on the driver to see that the vehicle is kept in such a manner that there is no possibility of third party meddling with it and causing any accident. In this case, the vehicle was kept in public place, viz., in the bus-station where several people will have an access to get into the vehicle. The driver and the conductor left the vehicle without keeping the vehicle incharge of any person to see that nobody meddles with the vehicle and thereby, the driver is negligent in discharge of his statutory duty cast on him u/s. 84 of M.V. Act. Thereby, he facilitated Sampath Reddy to get into the driver's seat and to drive the vehicle to a long distance and caused the accident by hitting the deceased, G. Komuraiah, on the extreme left side, while he was proceeding in the opposite direction. Thereby, the driver of the motor vehicle was negligent in discharging his duty. The owner is so vicariously liable for the negligent act on the part of the driver and has to equally share the burden of damages caused due to the death of the person passing on the public road. In this case, the quantum is not in dispute by either of the counsel. The claim is determined by the Tribunal and on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 64,200/- in all as can be seen from the judgment. Therefore, the quantum is also upheld and the Corporation as well as Sampath Reddy are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below. Accordingly, the appeal C.M.A. 12 of 1986 filed by Sampath Reddy is partly allowed and the appeal C.M.A. 512 of 1986 filed by the claimants is allowed in toto. In the circumstances, each party is directed to bear their own costs. The claimants are entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of the claim till the date of realisation. No costs.
1