SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. MADAN MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point which has been raised and pressed by Mr. Mehrish in this appeal is that Subhash Chand Meena alone has been held liable for the compensation but in fact the compensation should also be paid by the State of Rajasthan, who was owner of the vehicle. The case which is now in dispute before this court is that the jeep belonged to State of Rajasthan and the jeep met an accident by rolling down in the canal, resulting in death of Rajiv to whom compensation has been allowed.

(2.) The State of Rajasthan was owner of the jeep but the claim has been disallowed on the ground that jeep was not driven by the authorised driver Prem Chand. At the time of the accident the appellant was going on the work of the State. The appellant is holding that the post of Assistant Engineer and since he was going on the work of the State, even if it is assumed that it was not Prem Chand but the appellant who was driving then also the State would be liable, because for one reason he was going on the work of the State and secondly Prem Chand who was sitting as a driver in the vehicle allowed the appellant to drive the vehicle and the appellant drove the vehicle on behalf of Prem Chand and the State.

(3.) In this connection Mr. Mehrish has relied upon the judgement of this court in Smt. Gyarshi Devi, AIR 1982 Raj 30 in which this court has held :