circumstances of the case, the master-appellant was vicariously liable for the tortious act of the driver who has been found to be rash ... call for interference?
The learned Single Judge found that the employer had vicarious responsibility for the tortious act of the driver and that
employment and, therefore, the driver alone is liable for the tortious act and the owner is not vicariously liable. The same view was taken ... reasoning is well supported by evidence and, therefore, it does not warrant interference in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances
scope of the authority, the owner is vicariously liable for the tortious act of the servant.
7. The next question is whether the first respondent ... course of his employment and therefore, the driver alone is liable for tortious act and the owner is not vicariously liable. The same view
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Kamlaben Sultansinh Jadav And Ors. on 26 April, 1993
Marine And General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan on 23 March, 1976
Equivalent
Nasibdar Suba Fakir vs Adhia And Company And Ors. on 25 January, 1983
Equivalent citations
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Meenal And Ors. on 20 December, 1991
Equivalent citations
Mathew Koshy vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 15 July, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1(1989
Chacko P.M. Alias Thankachan vs Rosamma Antony And Ors. on 30 January, 1991
Equivalent
Meera Bai And Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 March
