KUNDAN KAUR Vs. S SHANKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE surviving question for determination in this appeal is whether Lila Dhar, defendant No. 4, the driver of the vehicle belonging to defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was in their employment at the time of the accident which resulted in the death of Kundan Lal Kohli whose widow Kundan Kaur filed a suit for damages of Rs. 10,000 in respect thereof.

(2.) THE appellant Kundan Kaur, widow of Kundan Lal Kohli, brought a suit in forma pauperis to recover damages of Rs. 10,000, the foundation of the claim being that her husband met with a fatal accident at 9-30 p. m. on 18th of January 1949, in the vehicle belonging to defendants 1 and 2, Shankar Singh and Trilok Singh, partners of the firm Allied Motor Transport Company Limited (defendant 3) and driven by their driver Lila Dhar, the fourth defendant, on its way to Deoband from Delhi. The vehicle had been taken on hire by Jawahar Transport Company, whose employee Kundan Lal Kohli was, and it was intended to transport goods in it from Deoband to Delhi. As a result of rash and negligent driving of the fourth defendant, the vehicle met with an accident resulting from its impact with a cart loaded with steel girders. One of the steel girders struck the window pane of the front seat next to the driver where Kundan Lal Kohli was sitting and resulted in his instantaneous death. The first two defendants were sought to be made liable as partners of the firm Allied Motor Transport Company, the third defendant. In addition to the driver, Lila Dhar, who is ' defendant 4, the, New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. , was impleaded as a fifth defendant, being the insurers. No relief was, however, preferred against the fifth defendant.

(3.) THE plaintiff was permitted to sue as a pauper and in addition to denying her right to Sue in this capacity the claim was resisted by the first two defendants on a variety of grounds. The ownership of the vehicle bearing No. DLH 3839 was denied. To show the equivocal nature of the plea on this score by the first two defendants, it is worthy to observe that in the written statement filed on behalf of the first defendant Shankar Singh, it was stated that vehicle No. DLH 3839 was owned as a "heavy transport vehicle" by defendant No. 3, namely, the Allied Motor Transport Company. It was stated that the vehicle was no longer owned by the Company. It was denied that the fourth defendant was driving the truck in question. It was further averred that no passenger could have been carried in the truck which was meant for transporting goods. It was, of course, traversed that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver. The quantum of damages claimed was questioned also. The pleas of the second defendant were similar. In the statements made by the first two defendants before issues were framed, somewhat inconsistent pleas were raised about the ownership of vehicle No. DLH 3839. The counsel for defendant 2 stated on 3rd of February 1951, as under:-