Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Sitaram Motilal Kalal vs Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt on 8 February, 1966
15. On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt . In that case the owner of the vehicle entrusted it to A for plying as a taxi. B used to clean the taxi. He was either employed by the owner or by A. A trained B to drive the vehicle and took B for obtaining the licence for driving. While taking the test B caused bodily injury to the respondent. At the time of the accident, A was not present in the vehicle. On the question whether the owner was liable, it was held in the majority judgment that the owner was not liable because evidence did not disclose that owner had employed B to drive the taxi or given him the permission to drive the taxi. However, Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) held that the owner was liable because A did not exceed the authority conferred on him by the owner in employing B as a servant and permitted him to drive the vehicle in order to obtain the licence for assisting him as a driver. This case was considered by this Court in the case of Pushpabai and it was said that recent trend in law is to make the master liable for acts which do not strictly fall within the term "in the course of the employment" as ordinarily understood.
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 1977
The learned Counsel for the appellants sought to distinguish Pushpabai case by contending that therein this Court accepted the unauthorized act of the driver being within the course of employment because of his occupying "high position of Manager', whereas in the case at hand Appellant 3 --the driver -- was a Class IV employee. We do not think that the ratio of the case turns on the opposition occupied by the driver. The real thrust of the decision is acceptance of the trend to make the master liable for acts which do not strictly fall within the term "in the course of employment" as ordinarily understood.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Lachhmi Devi And Ors. on 8 September, 1995
12. A Division Bench of this Court has considered in detail the law with regard to the vicarious liability in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Lachhmi Devi . In that case several persons sustained injuries when they were travelling in a truck. The owner of the truck contended that the driver had allowed the passengers to board the truck against his instructions and, therefore, he was not liable. After taking into consideration, the entire law, the Division Bench of this Court negatived the plea of the owner and held that the owner was responsible and liable for the conduct of his driver even if the same may be unauthorized.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Pirthi Singh And Anr. vs Binda Ram And Ors. on 30 May, 1986
8. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with the question of vicarious liability of the owner in Pirthi Singh v. Binda Ram . After considering the aforementioned authorities of the Hon'ble Court and a large number of English authorities on the point, the Full Bench held as follows:
State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And Ors on 22 August, 1995
11. A similar point came up before the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke . The Apex Court held as follows:
M.S. Rayta And Anr. Etc. vs Gowrawwa Channabasappa And Anr. Etc. on 25 July, 1986
9. This question also come up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in M.S. Rayta v. Gowrawwa Channabasappa . It was held that the master is vicariously liable even if the act of the driver is in violation of the departmental instructions. In that case, the vehicle in question belonged to the defence department. The defence taken was that the driver was not in the master's employment and was not driving the vehicle on the master's instructions. The driver had been asked to take the vehicle to a particular place and to bring it to the garage, but the driver did not return to the garage and instead unauthorisedly, he on his own, went in an altogether different direction on a joy ride. On the way he picked up some civilian passengers. An accident occurred and the claim petition was filed. The High Court rejected the defence of the State and held that despite departmental instructions and the specific instructions to the driver, it cannot be said that the driver was not driving the vehicle in connection with his duties and functions as a driver.
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. vs Ratna Devi And Ors. on 7 September, 1990
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratna Devi while considering a similar plea the High Court of M.P. held the owner -- State of Madhya Pradesh vicariously liable to pay compensation even though the driver of the Government jeep took the vehicle without permission and unauthorisedly gave lift to two passengers who died in the accident.
1