DAHIBEN WD O KARSANBHAI RAGHABHAI Vs. JESINGBHAI BIJALBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of Motor Accident Claim petition Nos. 17/1971 and 18/1971 filed by the claimants arising out of a single accident which had taken place near Ankleshwar on Rajpipla Road at about 11.00 p. m. on 27-4-1971 in which Truck No. GTB 6177 belonging to opponent No. 2 insured with opponent No. 3 and driven by opponent No. 1 was involved. In both these claim petitions the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Broach District at Broach (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by his judgment and award dated 21/11/1972 has awarded an amount of Rs. 7800/ in claim petition No. 17/71 and Rs. 1000.00in Claim petition No. 18/71 and ordered the No. 1 to pay the aforesaid amount to the respective appellant with interest at the rate of 60 p. a. from the date of the petition and proportionate costs thereon. However both the claim petitions against opponent Nos. 2 and 3 were dismissed by the Tribunal with costs. Therefore the respective appellants have filed these two Appeals on the ground that the Award should have been passed against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that is the owner of the truck and the In surance Company. The claimants are not claiming any additional amount of compensation in both these appeals. Mr. Desai learned Counsel for the appellant stated that he does not press his claim for any additional amount of compensation in this appeal but his only submission is that the Award should have been passed against all the respondents.

(2.) .So far as the question of negligence of the driver of the vehicle is concerned it has been held to be proved in this case and there is no appeal or cross objections against the said finding of the Tribunal and therefore the said finding has become final.

(3.) .So far as opponent No. 2 is concerned it is difficult to understand how he is not made liable under the Award even though the evidence is to the effect that the cleaner of the truck had permitted the deceased and one Bhikhabhai to board the truck. Even the Tribunal has given a finding in paragraph 27 of the Award that deceased Naranbhai was in fact given a lift in the truck in question. The Tribunal has further observed that if the driver was not willing to give lift he could have refused to proceed towards Rajpardi but instead of doing so he is shown to have immediately proceeded towards Rajpardi after the deceased was given lift in the truck in question. Deceased Naranbhai thus would be deemed to have been given the lift with the consent and connivance of the driver of the truck. Once the truck driver and the cleaner have carried the passengers in the vehicle the owner of the truck would be vicariously liable for the act of his employees namely the driver and the conductor of the truck in question. If the driver and/or the cleaner have given lift to the passengers in the truck that action of the driver and the conductor would bind the owner of the truck also unless it is shown that the said action is illegal or unauthorised or without authority. In ORMROD V. CROSVILLE MOTOR SERVICES LTD. (1953) 2 ALL ER 753 Lord Denning has observed as under;