TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nes and rashly and negligently driven by Karnail Singh driver, is alleged to have first knocked. down a cyclist and then swerving sharply ran over Pritam Singh who was allegedly standing on the kutcha portion of the road. Pritam Singh, deceased, received mortal injuries and was later removed to hospital where he succumbed thereto. A report was lodged with the police station regarding the accident and the case against the driver Karnail Singh was ago registered. The petitioner-respondents preferred a petition for recovery of rupees one lac as compensation against the appellant-owners of the truck along with the insurers of the truck, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, as also the driver, Karnail Singh. As regards the quantum of compensation it was averred on behalf of the petitioners that the deceased Pritam Singh was the sole proprietor of Pritam Automobile, Railway Road, Nangal, and had a monthly income of ₹ 800/- only His age at the material time was claimed to be 231/2 years. 3. In contesting the claim the positive plea set up by the driver, Karnail Singh and also the appellant-owners of the truck was that the truck driven by Karnail Singh accompanied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this claim, the compensation was assessed at ₹ 19,200/- only. In view of the aforesaid findings, the appeal was accepted against the appellant-owners and the driver, Karnail Singh. 6. The elaborate finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge have not been seriously challenged before us end indeed appear to be unassailable and even on an independent appraisal we would affirm them. What, however, emerges therefrom is the fact that there is now a concurrent finding that the deceased Pritam Singh, was a passenger in the goods truck at the material time and had been allowed to board the same by its driver. Karnail Singh apparently at the behest of Tara Sin (A W. 6) On this established factual foundation, the forceful argument raised on behalf of the appellant-owners of the truck is that no tortious liability can possibly be foisted on them. It has been plausibly argued that there is not even a tittle of evidence that the appellant-owners had, in any way authorised or even acquiesced in the carrying of the decease, Pritam Singh, in the truck. This apart, the act of the driver in doing so was indirect contravention of Rule 4.60 of the Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules 1940 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enso:-- 2(8): goods vehicle means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods, solely or in addition to passengers. xx xx xx 112: General provisions for punishment of offences:-- Whoever contravenes any prevision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder shall. if no other penalty is provided for the offence be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or if having been previously convicted of any offence under this Act, he is again convicted of an offence under this Act with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees. It is not in dispute that the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 have been validly framed under the parent statute o the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Once that is so, they would form as integral part of the Act in view of the authoritative pronouncement in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751. This apart a combined reading of Rule 4.60 and S. 112 would make it plain that the infraction of the former would be punishable as an offence under the law. Reference may also be made to Section 132 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n:-- On the facts as I have stated them, if was outside the scope of the driver's employment for him to bring within the class of persons to whom a duty to take care was owed by the employer, a man to whom, contrary to his instructions he gave a lift on a commercial van. On this basis, Twine, vis-a-vis Bean's, remained simply a trespasser on the van, who came there, in particular circumstances, the question is whether Bean's in the circumstances in which Twine was a passenger owed to him any duty to the care as to the proper driving of the van. In my opinion, they did not. The aforesaid view was noticed with approval by the Court of Appeal in Conway v. George Wimpey and Co. Ltd. (1951) 1 All ER 363. Therein also the driver of an open lorry designed for carrying goods and not men had unauthorisedly allowed a lift to a passenger who was not an employee of the owners. It was held that owners were not vicariously liable for the accident that ensued. Asquith, L. J. observed as follows:-- To put it differently, I should ho1d that taking men other than the defendants employees on the vehicle was not merely a wrongful mode of performing an act al the class which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
