VAIDYANATHA PILLAI Vs. NARASIMHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant, who was awarded compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for injuries sustained by him an accident caused by the Jeep TNU 3220, belonging to the second respondent, insured with the third respondent and being driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, has filed the present appeal challenging the award absolving the third respondent, the Insurance Company and casting liability on the first respondent, the driver on the vehicle.

(2.) Facts briefly are: on 09-12-1973 at about 5.45 p.m. while the appellant was coming from the bus stand at Paramakudi carrying betel leaves bundle on his cycle, he was knocked down by Jeep TNU 3220. The jeep was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the first respondent. The appellant sustained compound fracture of the left leg bone below the knee and above the ankle and the foot was crushed. The appellant underwent treatment, which finally left him with permanent disablement. The appellant filed M.C.O.P. No. 20 of 1975 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Ramanathapuram at Madurai, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.

(3.) The first respondent resisted the action contending that one Murugan, who was the regular driver of the jeep requested him to take the jeep for a trial, run, since some repairs had been done to the jeep just then, and that he did not drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The accident had occurred as a result of the negligence of the appellant. The claim was also considered excessive. The second respondent filed a counter stating that his regular driver was Murugan, who had stationed the jeep in the ESSO Petrol Bunk, after inflating air to the wheels and had gone for taking tea in a nearby tea shop. At that time, the first respondent, without any authority, on his own had taken the vehicle, which had resulted in the accident. The claim was excessive. The third respondent filed a counter challenging its liability on the ground that the first respondent was not the employee of the second respondent at the time when he drove the vehicle and had taken the vehicle without the consent and knowledge of Murugan, the regular driver of the second respondent and that, therefore, the second respondent was not vicariously liable for the rashness and negligence of the first respondent and consequently the third respondent also could not be called upon to indemnify.