GRAM PANCHAYAT MEHNGROWAL Vs. AUDITYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 31-7-1982 at about 10 P. M. Mohan Sharma aged about 23 years and Wazir Singh were returning to Hoshiarpur on their bicycles after completing their day's work as electrician in the milk plant, where they were employed at monthly salary of Rs. 675/ -. On the way near village Ajawol, tractor with trolly attached bearing registration No. 7495 belonging to Gram Panchayat of village Mehngrowal, driven by Guran Dass came from the opposite direction. It first hit Wazir Singh who fell down on the Kacha side of the road and then bit Mohan Sharma and dragged him to some distance. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident in the chest and the head, Mohan Sharma died. His father and two minor sisters filed application for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal' ). The driver and the owner of the tractor denied the accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-1. Whether the accident took place due to the rashness or negligence or both of Guran Dass respondent? OPA

(2.) IF issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from which of the respondents? OPA

(3.) IF issues No. 1 is proved, whether respondent No. 1 was not driving the tractor. at the time of the accident during the course of his employment with respondent No. 2? OPR On the evidence led in the case, the Tribunal by a well considered order dt. 27th April, 1983 decided all issues in favour of the claimants and against the driver and owner of the tractor, and awarded Rs. 30,000/- compensation to the father of the deceased. This is appeal by the Gram Panchayat, owner of the tractor, in which claimants have filed cross-objections. 2. After considering the matter, 1 am of the view that it is fully established from the statement of Wazir Singh, who is eye-witness of the occurrence that the appellant's tractor was involved in the accident and the story set up by the Gram Panchayat and its driver is completely an afterthought. In the first information report, which was got recorded at midnight the number of the tractor and the name of the driver are mentioned. In view of the above, 1 uphold the finding of the Court below on issue No. 1. 3. Finding on issue No. 3 recorded by the Tribunal also deserves to be upheld. So for as the victims are concerned, it did not matter whether the driver of the tractor trolly exceeded his authority in taking the tractor beyond a certain limit. All the same if he committed accident, the Gram Panchayat by way of vicarious liability was responsible for the same. See in this behalf the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, (1987) 91 Pun LR 665: (AIR 1987 SC 1184 ). There, the Insurance Company took the stand that although the truck was insured but the driver of the truck had allowed cleaner to drive and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable. This argument was declined and the Insurance Company was held liable to compensate the insured even if it was driven at a particular moment by an unauthorised person. The present case is better on facts because here the licensed driver was employed by the Gram Panchayat for driving the tractor.