APSRTC HYD Vs. K SAMPATH REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation which was 1 st Respondent in O.RNo. 13 8 of 1981, being aggrieved by the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed in C.M.A.No.12 of 1986 and C.M.A.No.512 of 1986. The Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to note a few facts of the case. On 4-12-1981 at about 7.40 p.m. the driver of the appellant-Corporation parked the bus bearing No.APZ 9226 in Jalgoan bus stand and himself and conductor went to canteen to take meals. By the time they returned they found that the vehicle was Immediately they reported the matter to the Depot Manager and the Traffic Inspector. Meanwhile, it is learnt that one person by name K. Sampath Reddy who has been made 2nd Respondent in O.P. No. 138 of 1981 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently near Kazipet and hit the deceased G. Komaraiah working as Kalasi in the Railway Department who was coming on a cycle in the opposite direction. As a result the deceased suffered grievous injury and he was taken to the hospital, but, in the meanwhile he was declared dead. Mr. K. Sampath Reddy drove the vehicle to a distance of 2 to 3 Kms. and abandoned the vehicle. Meanwhile the Depot Manager filed a complaint before the police under Ex.B.2 complaining the theft of the vehicle. When the Depot Manager and the police searched for the vehicle they found the vehicle abandoned. One Kishan Rao, a quarry owner of the quarry situated near by laid a complaint to the police alleging the rash and negligent driving by K. Sampath Reddy. There after the L.Rs. of the deceased G. Komaraiah filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/-. In support of the claim claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.A-1, the salary certificate of the deceased dated 21-3-1985. On behalf of the respondents one witness was examined as P.W.I and got marked as Ex.B-1 a certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.210 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial. First Class Magistrate, Jalgaon dated 7-11-1984 and Ex.B.2 a certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.184 of 1982 on the file of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal dated 15-7-1985. On the entire appreciation of the evidence on record the Claims Tribunal holding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by K. Sampath Reddy awarded a compensation of Rs.29,200/- in favour of the 1st Petitioner. He awarded Rs.5,000/- each in favour of Petitioners 2 to 6 and Rs. 10,000/- together in favour of the Petitioners 7 and 8 all recoverable from 2nd Respondent i.e. K. Sampath Reddy with an interest of Rs.6/- per annum from the date of the realisation. It is in these circumstances K. Sampath Reddy filed an appeal before the learned single Judge in C.M.A.No.12 of 1986 and the claimants also filed an appeal for the enhancement of the compensation in C.M.A.No.512 of 1986. The learned single Judge modified the judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal by fixing the liability both on the appellant-Corporation as well as on K. Sampath Reddy jointly and severally for the payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by allowing C.M.A.No.12 of 1986 filed by K. Sampath Reddy partly, and allowing C.M.A.No.512 of 1986 filed by the claimants. It is in these circumstances, A.P.S.R.T.C. has preferred these two appeals. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the A.P.S.R.T.C. strenuously contended that having regard to the facts of this case the learned single Judge could not have fixed the liability on the Corporation, as the owner of vehicle, when admittedly the vehicle was driven by K. Sampath Reddy who was not their authorised driver. In fact they had filed a case before the police complaining the theft of the vehicle. He further contended that unfortunately he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court. But having regard to the facts of the case it is K. Sampath Reddy who is solely liable to pay the compensation but not the Corporation. He also invited our attention to the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a decision in "Guriqbal Singh v. Surinder Kaur", 1982 ACJ 406 (P&H) in support of his contention and submitted that it is a fit case for allowing these two appeals by exonerating the Corporation from the liability in question.

(2.) We have given very anxious consideration to the facts of this case and also the law applicable. It is not in dispute that the driver of the Corporation had left the bus in question at Jalgaon Bus Stand without making any arrangement to take care of it. At that time the conductor and the driver had gone to canteen for taking meals, and in the meanwhile the bus was found missing. The case of theft pleaded by the Corporation is held to be not proved in the Criminal Court. The resultant position would be that K. Sampath Reddy drove that vehicle rashly and negligently and ultimately the accident occurred and the deceased suffered injury and consequently died. Now, the question before us is whether the appellant- Corporation is liable for the compensation in such circumstances.

(3.) From the facts narrated above one thing is clearly established that the driver of the appellant-Corporation was negligent in leaving the bus at a public place like Bus Stand unattended. Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides a statutory duty on the driver of the vehicle not to leave the vehicle unattended at a public place. If that is so, if the driver leaves the vehicle unattended at a public place there would be negligence on his part and for the negligence of such a driver the owner would be vicariously liable. In fact dealing with similar situation the Honourable Supreme Court in a decision "Minu B. Mehta and another v. Balkrishna Ramachandra Nayan and another", 1977 ACJ 118 (1) SC held as under: