Bangari Rajam vs Dasari Sattamma and Others

A. Lakshmana Rao, J.—As these two appeals arise out of the common order of the learned single Judge, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.

One by name, Dasari Narayana died as a result of the accident while he was travelling in the lorry API 1671 belonging to the Singareni Collieries company Ltd., The accident took place on 16-10-1984 at about 9 A.M. At the time of the accident, Sri Bangari Rajam, Appellant in L.P.A.No. 264 of 1992 was driving the vehicle. There is no dispute that Bangari Rajam was the employee of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., at the time of the accident and he was authorised by the Singarani Collieries Company Ltd., to drive the lorry API 1671. On the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2 and Exs. A-1 and A-2, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Bangari Rajam.

The claimants were the mother, the wife and the minor son of the deceased Dasari Narayana. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in its counter filed before the Claims Tribunal admitted that the deceased Dasari Narayana was its employee and was earning wages of Rs. 959-92 ps. per month at the time of the accident. On the basis of evidence, the Tribunal determined the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 79,000/-. However, holding that the driver Bangari Rajam was not authorised by the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., to permit the deceased Dasari Narayana to travel in the vehicle and therefore the Company was not liable to pay the compensation the Tribunal directed that the driver alone was liable to pay the compensation.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the driver and the claimants filed appeals A.A.O.Nos. 1240 of 1987 and 47 of 1988 respectively. The learned single judge dismissed both the appeals. Hence these two Letters Patent Appeals have seen filed by the driver and the claimants.

The main question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., is vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the dependants of the deceased who died as a result of the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of its vehicle by its employee Bangari Rajam?

There is no dispute that Bangari Rajam who was the driver of the vehicle was the employee of the Singarani Collieries Company Ltd., It is not denied by the Company that the driver was authorised to drive the vehicle API 1761 on the date of accident took place. While the lorry was proceeding from 2 Incline towards Goleti Division, it was involved in an accident and turned turtle. R.W.1 who was the engineer working in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited admitted in his evidence mat he deputed Sarvasri D. Balakrishna, B. Ramakrishna, P. Sathaiah, P. Ramaiah and K. Sathaiah, Employees of the Company to travel in the lorry for the purpose of going to the filter beds and cleaning them. As is rightly held by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, the evidence on record establishes that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Bangari Rajam. In view of the facts and circumstances referred to above, we have to hold that the accident took place in the course of employment of the driver Bangari Rajam while he was driving the vehicle under the authority of the Company.

However, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for Singareni Collieries Company Limited that the deceased was not authorised by the Company to travel in the lorry and the driver had unauthorisedly permitted him to travel in the lorry. Therefore, the Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the dependants of the deceased Dasari Narayana.

In support of their contention that the Singareni Collieries Company Limited is vicariously liable to pay the compensation in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the learned Counsel for the appellants have placed strong reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company 1977 ACJ 343 S.C. In that case, one by name Madhavjibhai Mathuradas Ved, the Manager of the Ginning Company was authorised to use and drive the vehicle of the Company for proceeding to Pandhurna from Nagpur on the business of the Company. On its way, he picked up one Purushottam who was also an employee of the Ginning Company. The vehicle met with an accident and, as a result of that Purushottam died. The dependants of Purushottam claimed compensation. Having found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Manager and that the Ginning Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants on account of the negligence of their employee, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the said case awarded the compensation directing the Ginning Co., to pay it. On appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh found that there was no evidence that the owner of the vehicle, namely, the Ginning Company was aware that Purushottam was being taken in the car as a passenger by their Manager and therefore the owner cannot be held liable for the tortious act of its employee. Aggrieved by the said decision, the claimants filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. The question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the employer was vicariously liable for the alleged tortious act of its employees on the facts and circumstances of the case. Holding that the employer was liable to pay the compensation to the dependants of the deceased Purushottam, the learned Judges thus observed.

"Before we conclude we would like to point out that the 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. We have referred to Sitaram Motilal Kalal Vs. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt, ) where this Court accepted the law laid down by Lord Denning in ......that the owner is not only liable for the negligence of the driver if that driver is his servant acting in the course of his employment but also when the driver is, with the owner''s consent, driving the car on the owner''s business or for the owner''s purpose. This extension has been accepted by this Court..........

On a consideration of the cases, we confirm the law as laid down by this Court in Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhati and find that in this case the driver was acting in the course of his employment and as such the owner is liable........."

Having found that the driver was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and as a result of that accident the deceased, died, the Supreme Court held that the employer was vicariously liable for the tortious act of its employee.

The facts of the case decided by the Supreme Court (1 supra) are almost similar to the facts in the instant case. The driver Bangari Rajam was acting in the course of his employment when the vehicle API 1671 met with the accident. At that time the vehicle was used for the business of the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. The driver was authorised to drive the vehicle on that day. The evidence on record clinchingly establishes that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver Bangari Rajam.

In the case referred to Supra decided by the Supreme Court, the main contention advanced on behalf of the employer was that the deceased Purushottam travelled in the vehicle without the permission of the employer and the Manager who had driven the vehicle was not authorised to permit Purushottam to travel in the vehicle and therefore the employer was not vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the dependants of the deceased Purushottam. Dealing with this contention, the learned Judges have referred to the following observations of Lord Justice Denning in Young v. Edward Box and Co. Ltd. (1951) 1 T.L.R. 789.

".....The first question is to see whether the servant was liable. If the answer is Yes, the second question is to see whether the employer must shoulder the servant''s liability. So far as the driver is concerned, his liability depends on whether the plaintiff was on the lorry with his consent or not......

The next question is how far the employers are liable for their servant''s conduct. In order to make the employers liable to the passenger it is not sufficient that they should be liable for their servant''s negligence in driving. They must also be responsible for his conduct in giving the man a lift. If the servant has been forbidden, or is unauthorised, to give any one a lift, then no doubt the passenger is a trespasser on the lorry so far as the owners are concerned. But that is not of itself an answer to the claim........In my opinion, when the owner of a lorry sends his servant on a journey with it, thereby putting the servant in position not only to drive it, but also to give people a lift in it, then he is answerable for the manner in which the servant conducts himself on the journey, not only in the driving of it, but also in giving lifts in it, provided, of course, that in so doing the servant is acting in the course of his employment."

After referring to those observations of Lord Justice Denning, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court concluded as follows:

"Lord Justice Denning concluded by observing that the passenger was therefore a trespasser, so far as the employers were concerned; but nevertheless the driver was acting in the course of his employment, and that is sufficient to make the employers liable. It will thus be seen that while two of the learned Judges held that the right to give the plaintiff leave to ride on the lorry was within the ostensible authority of the foreman and the plaintiff was entitled to rely on that authority as a licensee, Lord Denning based it on the ground that even though the plaintiff was a trespasser as far as the defendants were concerned, as the driver was acting in the course of his employment in giving the plaintiff a lift it was sufficient to make the defendants liable. Applying the test laid down there can be no difficulty in concluding that the right to give leave to Purushorttam to ride in the car was within the ostensible authority of the Manager of the company who was driving the car and that the Manager was acting in the Course of his employment in giving leave to Purushottam. Under both the tests the respondents would be liable."

Having found that the accident was caused during the course of the employment of the manager, while he was driving the car on the business of the Company, the Supreme Court directed the employer to pay the compensation to the dependants of the deceased.

In the instant case, the lorry API 1671 driven by Bangari Rajam was sent by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited on the fateful day to carry some of its employees to the filter beds for the purpose of cleaning them. On the way, the driver gave a lift to the deceased Dasari Narayana, who was also an employee of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The driver acted in the course of his employment in giving the lift to the deceased. The Company cannot rely on Ex.B-1 letter dated April 15, 1985 to plead that the deceased Narayana was not authorised to travel in the lorry. We have to bear in mind that the accident took place on October 6, 1984 and on that day there were no such instructions given to the driver, as those mentioned in Ex.B-1 letter.

Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the case (1) referred to above, we have to hold that the right to give leave to the deceased Dasari Narayana to travel in the lorry was within the ostensible authority of the driver and he was acting in the course of his employment in giving such leave. Therefore, the Singareni Collieries Company Limited is vicariously liable for the tortious act of its employee.

For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the Singareni Collieries Company Limited is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants who are the appellants in L.P.A.No. 314 of 1992.

The Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 78,000/- to the claimants. It was mentioned in the inquest report that the deceased Dasari Narayana was aged 45 years at the time of his death. The counter affidavit filed by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited discloses that the deceased was earning wages of Rs. 959-92 ps. per month at the time of the accident. The age of superannuation in the company is 60 years. In view of these facts, the quantum of compensation determined by the Claims Tribunal and confirmed by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be not proper. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.