S N GANGULY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the Proprietor of a motor bus service, has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 16, Vehicles Act, 1914, for having contravened the provisions of Rule 61 of the rules made under the Act. This rule provides that: Every motor bus shall at all times carry an attendant, who shall relieve the driver of all matters unconnected with the propulsion of the vehicle and its mechanical fitness.

(2.) IT has been found by the Magistrate who tried the case and by the appellate Court that a man was employed on the bus who has been referred to in the evidence and by the petitioner himself as a cleaner whose duties were to put luggage on the bus, to unload the luggage, put water in the radiator and start the bus by turning the starting handle. IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that this cleaner is "an attendant" for the purposes of Rule 61; and it is argued that if the cleaner did not relieve the driver of all matters unconnected with the propulsion of the vehicle and its mechanical fitness then the responsibility was that of the cleaner. I am unable to accept this contention. IT does not appear to have been the petitioner's case in the lower Courts, and it is not stated to be his case in the application he has made to this Court, that he had appointed the cleaner for the purpose stated in the rule. The driver was left with other duties to perform with regard, for example, to the issuing of tickets and the giving of information to the passengers. Apparently the cleaner was not permitted to do these things. The petitioner himself stated that the man was a cleaner though he said he called him an attendant. This designation however was evidently applied to him with a view nominally to comply with the requirements of the rule. IT is objected on behalf of the petitioner that observance of the rule as the rule has been interpreted by the Magistrates would entail the employment of three men on each bus. This however is not the case. The rule requires only that there shall be one man besides the driver appointed for the purpose of dealing with and competent to deal with all matters that are unconnected with the actual driving of the bus. The application is dismissed.