MUKHO DEVI Vs. SYED HASSEN ZAHEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Mehar Chand an employee of the Reserve Bank of India at Delhi, met with a motor accident on 5.5.1962 which resulted in his death on the spot. His legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 33,000.00 from the owner of the car as well as the Insurance Company with which the car was insured. According to the averments in this application, the deceased was going on his bicycle on the Lodi Road at about 4.30 P.M. when a car No. DLE 1913, driven recklessly and negligently by the driver, knocked him down. The deceased was dragged by the car to some distance and when the car ultimately came to a stop by striking against an electric pole, it was found that the deceased was dead. The deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 170.00 per month and was aged about 50 years on the date of the accident. The petitioners were thus deprived of the source of their maintenance. They estimated the pecuniary loss sustained by them by the untimely death of the deceased at Rs. 33,000.00 and claimed this amount from the owner of the car as well as from the Insurance Company.

(2.) The application was resisted by the owner of the car on the ground that the accident occurred at a time when the car was not driven by the driver employed by him but by another person who was permitted by the regular driver of the car to drive it without the permission or knowledge of the owner of the car. According to the owner of the car, the accident occurred when the driver of the car was not driving it in the course of his employment. The owner of the car, therefore, disclaimed his liability to pay any compensation to the petitioners. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it disclaimed its liability to pay any compensation inasmuch as the car was not being driven at the time of the accident by a licensed driver but by another person who had no licence to drive the car. 2. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal : 1. Whether the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No.DLE 1913 on 5.5.1962 at 4.30 P.M.? 2. Who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of the accident ? 3. Whether, the person driving the vehicle in question at the time of the accident was not in the employment, or driving under the control of respondent No. 1 ? 4. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled to claim and from whom ? 5. Relief. The learned trial court held on issue Nos. 1 and 2 that at the time of the accident, the car was being driven by one Lazrus who was not the driver employed by the owner of the car and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Lazrus. On issue No. 3, the learned trial Court held that the person who was driving the car at the time of the accident was not in the employment of the owner of the car or under the latter's control. On issue No. 4, it was held that if the petitioners were entitled to receive any compensation, they would be entitled to receive Rs. 18.600.00. It was further held that the petitioners would be entitled to receive this amount only from the person who was actually driving the car, namely, Lazrus and not from either the owner of the car or from the Insurance Company. But inasmuch as neither Lazrus nor the regular driver of the car, namely, Loius, had been impleaded as parties to the application and only the owner of the car and the Insurance Company were impleaded, the application filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners have filed the present appeal against the said order of the learned Tribunal.

(3.) The following facts are not in dispute : One Loius was the driver who was employed by Mr. Zaheer, the owner of the car. Lazrus was the son of an ayah who was employed by Mr. Zaheer. Loius was teaching Lazrus how to drive the car on the date of the accident and while Lazrus was actually at the steering wheel, Loius was sitting by his side. Although Loius himself has not admitted that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the car by Lazrus, there is no dispute between the contesting parties that the accident occurred only due to the fact that Lazrus lost control over the car and the car was being driven in a zig-zag-manner along the road and after knocking down the deceased the car could not be stopped immediately and that the car stopped only after travelling to a certain distance and after hitting an electric pole. Therefore, the finding of the learned. Tribunal is not disputed by the respondents in this case regarding the cause of the death of the deceased. The only question in dispute is whether the respondents are liable to pay any compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased.