(1.) THE two appeals are by the Union of India and its Defence Department. They arise out of and are directed against the common Judgment and separate awards dated 16 -1 -1986 made in M.V.C. Nos. 39 of 1984 and 115 of 1984 respectively, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -1, Belgaum, awarding compensations in the two actions - one, a fatal accident's action and the other a personal injury action. The claims before the Tribunal arose out of an accident that occurred at 9 a.m. on 28 -12 -1983 involving appellants' Military Vehicle No. 76 -C 13703 -A.
(2.) INM .V.C.No.39 of l984 the claimant is Gowrawwa - - the mother of one Chandru Channabasappa Shivapure. In M.V.C. No. 115 of 1984, a certain Dada Peer is the claimant. The said Chandru, aged about 30 years, died and Dada Peer ' injured in the accident that occurred on the National High Way No. 4 near Nittur village between Khanapur and Belgaum. The driver of the said Military vehicle, though not authorised so to do, picked -up and gave a lift to these two persons after collecting some money by way of fares from them. On the way from Khanapur to Belgaum, the vehicle hit a roadside tree. Chandru died. Dada Peer sustained injuries which included a fracture of the bone of his left upper -arm. and other injuries all over his person. The mother of the deceased Chandru and the injured Dada Peer brought the two actions for compensation. For Chandru's death, the Tribunal awarded to his mother Rs. 21,750/ -as compensation. For the injuries; Dada Peer was awarded Rs. 24,700/ -
(3.) SRI . Padmarajaiah, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, contended that, the findings of the Tribunal on all the material issues are erroneous and call for interference in appeal. The contentions urged by the learned Standing Counsel in support of the appeal, admit of being formulated thus : (a) That at the time of the accident the driver was not on the master's duty and was not engaged in the course of employment; but had unauthorisedly taken the vehicle on a 'frolic of his own'. There would be no vicarious liability in such a case. (b) That, at all events, even if it is held that the journey was in the course of the employment or for the master's purpose, the picking -up of, and giving lifts to, civilian passengers in the military vehicle was expressly prohibited - and indeed in this case amounts to an offence under the Motor Vehicles Rules - and the master would not be liable for such unauthorised acts of the servant. (c) That, at all events, the accident was an inevitable -accident not attributable to actionable negligence on the part of the driver but attributable to a mechanical failure and therefore, no liability arises. (d) That the quantum of compensation is, otherwise, also excessive.