Dharam Vir vs Krishna Devi and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—This order will dispose of the appeal referred to above as also the cross-appeal F.A.O. No. 38 of 1977 (Krishna Devi v. Dharam Vir).

On February 27, 1973, Hans Raj, the husband of the claimant, Krishna Devi was knocked down and run over by car DLI 7123. This accident took place on the Grand Trunk road between Ambala and Delhi. Hans Raj was going on his cycle when the car came from the opposite direction and hit into him.

The Tribunal awarded Krishna Devi a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in respect of loss suffered by her holding that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of Dharam Vir, the driver of the offending car. The liability for the amount awarded was fastened upon the said Dharam Vir alone. The owner of the car and the Respondent, insurance company were not held liable.

The only prayer in the appeal filed by Dharam Vir was that at the time of the accident, he was employed by Bhola Ram of Jai Hind Motor Workshop, Sonepat and the accident took place during the course of his employment with him and consequently the liability, if any, for this accident, was wholly that of the said Bhola Ram. Krishna Devi, on the other hand, in her appeal sought to fasten the liability for the amount awarded also upon Daya Nand, the owner of the car and the Respondent-insurance company. In other words, the controversy in this appeal is not with regard to the amount awarded which incidentally was the total amount claimed, but to the persons liable for payment thereof.

According to the facts found, which have not been challenged in appeal, Daya Nand, the owner of the car, had given it for repairs to the workshop. Dharam Vir was a mechanic employed in the said workshop and it was while this car was being test-driven by Dharam Vir that this accident took place.

At the very out-set, it deserves note that Dharam Vir did not possess a valid driving licence. In the absence thereof the Respondent-insurance company cannot but stand absolved of liability.

Turning to Daya Nand, the owner of the car, there is no material on record to suggest any legal relationship between him and Dharam Vir to render him liable for this accident in any manner. He was neither the servant nor the driver employed by Daya Nand.

As regards Bhola Ram even if a relationship of master and servant between him and Dharam Vir be assumed, he cannot be held liable without his having been impleaded as a party to these proceedings. At no stage was any attempt made to implead him as such; not even in appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no escape from the conclusion that the liability for the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants Krishna Devi and others was that of Dharam Vir alone and consequently the order of the Tribunal to this effect is hereby affirmed. In the result, both the appeals are disposed of. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to cost.