TAJENDER KAUR Vs. SURJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation filed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petition had been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased who was said to be a driver in the insured's vehicle who on transit was murdered. The petition for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act appears to have been filed but it was dismissed. I do not have the copy of the order but the impugned judgment makes reference to dismissal of the petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

(2.) The petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is made again substantially on the same contention that the deceased had met with his death during the time when he was driving the vehicle and transporting the good on behalf of his employer. The contention is that the death was on account of use of the motor vehicle and therefore, it should be compensated by the employer and insurer. This issue of whether the employer could be made liable for a death resulting to a driver who drives the vehicle came for consideration before the Gujarat High Court and the same was considered in National Insurance Company Vs. Gitaben Saitansinh Rajput and 5 others, 2009 2 GLR 1348. That was a claim made under Section 163A on similar facts of when the driver who was transporting goods on behalf of his employer was way laid and he was murdered in the same vehicle when he was sent for duty. The High Court held that the claimants were entitled for compensation from the employer and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased who should be said to have contributed to the death. The High Court upheld the claim for compensation under Section 163-A on strict liability basis as death occurring on account of accident.

(3.) Though it is contended that even earlier the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that the representatives had not proved employer-employee relationship when the petition was filed under the Employees Compensation Act (previously Workmen's Compensation Act), I must observe that the said judgment itself has not been placed by parties before the Court below for drawing an appropriate inference on the actual grounds used against the representatives of the deceased. A driver of a vehicle who was transporting goods ought to be taken as a person going at the behest of the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle must have a large explanation to give about how the deceased came to be incharge of the vehicle with valuable goods. A relationship of employer and workman will have to be made in every situation where the driver is driving the owner's vehicle and any untoward event takes place. Since it was not a case of theft by the driver, a case of entrustment by the owner to a driver must be presumed. There is no such defence brought in this case except an evasive reply that there was no relationship of employer and workman. I discard the defence that there was no employer-employee relationship and hold that the very fact that the deceased at the wheels driving the owner's vehicle was sufficient presumption of the existence of such a jural relationship.