1966 (2) TMI 87 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court ruling: 1st defendant not liable for accident caused by 3rd defendant.

Sitaram Motilal Kalal Versus Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt

The High Court held the 1st defendant liable for an accident caused by the 3rd defendant's negligence while driving a taxi. However, the dissenting ... - Issues Involved:1. Liability of the 1st defendant (owner) for the negligence of the 3rd defendant (cleaner/driver).2. Admissibility of evidence against the 1st defendant.3. Vicarious liability and the scope of employment.Detailed Analysis:1. Liability of the 1st Defendant (Owner) for the Negligence of the 3rd Defendant (Cleaner/Driver):Subba Rao, J. (Dissenting Opinion):- The 1st defendant, an agriculturist, owned a car and entrusted it to the 2nd defendant for use as a taxi. The 2nd defendant managed the taxi operations and appointed the 3rd defendant as a cleaner, later training him to drive.- On the day of the accident, the 3rd defendant was driving the car to obtain a permanent driving license and caused an accident that injured the plaintiff.- The Civil Judge initially held the 3rd defendant negligent but found him to be the servant of the 2nd defendant, not the 1st defendant. The suit against the 1st defendant was dismissed.- The High Court reversed this, holding the 1st defendant liable, reasoning that the 2nd defendant, as the manager, had the authority to train the 3rd defendant and that the 1st defendant implicitly authorized this.- Subba Rao, J., agreed with the High Court, stating that the 2nd defendant had the authority to manage the taxi, including training the 3rd defendant. Thus, the 1st defendant was liable for the accident caused by the 3rd defendant's negligence during his employment.Hidayatullah, J. (Majority Opinion):- The 1st defendant entrusted the car to the 2nd defendant to be used as a taxi. The 2nd defendant managed the taxi operations, collected fares, and accounted to the owner.- The 3rd defendant, who caused the accident, was appointed by the 2nd defendant and was not authorized by the 1st defendant to drive the car.- The Trial Judge held that the 3rd defendant was the servant of the 2nd defendant, and the 1st defendant was not liable as the 3rd defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment.- The High Court held the 1st defendant liable, relying on inadmissible evidence.- Hidayatullah, J., concluded that the 3rd defendant was not authorized by the 1st defendant to drive the car and the 2nd defendant's actions were outside the scope of his employment. Thus, the 1st defendant was not liable for the accident.2. Admissibility of Evidence Against the 1st Defendant:Subba Rao, J.:- The High Court relied on admissions made by the 3rd defendant in his written statement and reply notice, which were conceded as inadmissible against the 1st defendant.- Subba Rao, J., assumed these pieces of evidence were not relevant against the 1st defendant and excluded them from consideration.Hidayatullah, J.:- The High Court relied on Exs. 97, 87, and 16, which were admissions made by the 3rd defendant.- These documents were inadmissible against the 1st defendant as they were not deposed to by anyone, and their truth was not tested.- Hidayatullah, J., excluded this evidence, concluding there was no proof that the 1st defendant authorized the 3rd defendant to drive the taxi.3. Vicarious Liability and the Scope of Employment:Subba Rao, J.:- The doctrine of constructive liability holds the owner liable for the acts of his driver if the accident occurred in the course of employment.- The 2nd defendant, as the manager, had the authority to manage the taxi, including training the 3rd defendant. Thus, the 1st defendant was liable for the accident caused by the 3rd defendant's negligence.Hidayatullah, J.:- The master is vicariously liable for the acts of his servants in the course of employment.- The 3rd defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment when he drove the taxi. The 2nd defendant's act of lending the car for the driving test was outside the scope of his employment.- The owner is not liable if the servant's act is outside the course of employment and not authorized by the master.- The 3rd defendant borrowed the taxi for his own purpose, and the 2nd defendant was not acting in the master's business when he lent the taxi. Thus, the owner was not liable.Conclusion:- Subba Rao, J. (Dissenting Opinion): The 1st defendant is liable for the accident caused by the 3rd defendant's negligence during the course of his employment.- Hidayatullah, J. (Majority Opinion): The 1st defendant is not liable as the 3rd defendant's act of driving the taxi was outside the scope of his employment, and the 2nd defendant was not authorized to permit the 3rd defendant to drive the taxi.Order:- The appeal is allowed in respect of the 1st defendant. There is no order as to costs throughout.