TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Truck owners not liable for passenger, driver negligent in accident, insurance not liable for compensation.</h1> <h3>Jiwan Dass Roshan Lal Versus Karnail Singh And Ors.</h3> Jiwan Dass Roshan Lal Versus Karnail Singh And Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the unauthorized carrying of a passenger in a goods truck by its driver can be deemed to be in the course of the employment of the owner of the truck, thus making the owner vicariously liable.2. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence and carelessness of the driver.3. The liability of the insurance company since the deceased was traveling in a public carrier.4. The competency of the petitioners to bring the claim application.5. The quantum of compensation to be awarded.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Unauthorized Passenger and Vicarious Liability:The primary issue was whether the unauthorized carrying of a passenger in a goods truck by its driver, in contravention of Rule 4.60 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, could be deemed to be in the course of the driver's employment, thus making the owner vicariously liable. The court found that there was no evidence that the truck owners had authorized or acquiesced in the carriage of the deceased, Pritam Singh. The unauthorized act of carrying a passenger was in direct contravention of Rule 4.60 and was thus an offense under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court concluded that the driver, Karnail Singh, was not acting in the course of his employment when he carried the deceased. Therefore, the owners could not be held vicariously liable for the driver's tortious act.2. Negligence and Carelessness of the Driver:The Tribunal and the learned Single Judge both found that the accident was caused due to the negligence and carelessness of the driver, Karnail Singh. This finding was not seriously challenged before the High Court, and the court affirmed this conclusion.3. Liability of the Insurance Company:The insurance company contended that their policy did not cover the liability of a passenger in a goods vehicle, as per Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal accepted this argument, and the insurance company was not held liable to pay any compensation. This finding was also not contested further.4. Competency of the Petitioners:The Tribunal initially held that the petitioners were not competent to bring the claim application. However, the learned Single Judge reversed this finding, holding that the petitioners were indeed competent to file the claim. The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's conclusion on this issue.5. Quantum of Compensation:The Tribunal had denied compensation to the petitioners, but the learned Single Judge assessed the compensation at Rs. 19,200/-. The High Court upheld this assessment but modified the judgment to allow interest on the compensation from the date the claim petition was presented, agreeing with the settled view that interest should normally be allowed from the date of application unless there are reasons to hold otherwise.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the appeal of the truck owners, setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge that had saddled them with liability. The court found no reason to disturb the judgment regarding the liability of the driver, Karnail Singh. The appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation was dismissed, but the court modified the judgment to allow interest from the date of the claim petition. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
