Vicarious liability in motor accident claims fails without proof of authorised driving, but statutory no-fault compensation remains payable.

Vicarious liability for a motor accident requires proof that the vehicle was driven by the owner's servant or by a person authorised in the course of employment or agency. As the car had allegedly been stolen, a prompt police complaint was made, and no evidence identified the driver or established any master-servant relationship or authority, the owner and insurer were not liable on a fault basis. The claimants, however, remained entitled to statutory no-fault compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act because the accident occurred before the relevant amendment, so the award was modified to that limited extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the owner and insurer were vicariously liable for the accident when the vehicle had allegedly been stolen and was driven by an unknown person without any proved employment or authority. (ii) Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under the no-fault provision.

Issue (i): Whether the owner and insurer were vicariously liable for the accident when the vehicle had allegedly been stolen and was driven by an unknown person without any proved employment or authority.

Analysis: Liability of the owner for a motor accident depends on proof that the vehicle was driven by his servant or by a person authorised to drive it in the course of employment or agency. The evidence showed that the car had been stolen from the owner's premises, a prompt police complaint had been made, and there was no proof that the person who caused the accident was employed by or authorised by the owner. The eyewitness did not identify the driver. In the absence of the jural relationship of master and servant or any proved authority, vicarious liability could not be fastened on the owner, and the insurer also could not be made liable on that basis.

Conclusion: The owner and insurer were not liable on the footing of vicarious liability.

Issue (ii): Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under the no-fault provision.

Analysis: Even though liability on fault basis failed, the accident had occurred prior to the relevant amendment and the claimants were entitled to the statutory no-fault compensation available under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount payable was limited to the amount then prescribed under the no-fault scheme.

Conclusion: The claimants were entitled to Rs. 25,000 under the no-fault provision.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the claim on fault liability was maintained, but the award was modified to grant the statutory no-fault compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the claimants.

Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious liability for a motor accident does not arise unless the vehicle is shown to have been driven by the owner's servant or by a person authorised by the owner, and in the absence of such proof the owner and insurer are not liable on a fault basis, though statutory no-fault compensation remains recoverable where applicable.

---