Laxmi Narayan vs Shanti Bai and Others

S. Samvatsar, J.—This appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging an award of Rs. 65,000/- passed in favour of claimants, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The facts of the case are that one Manoj, aged about 15 years died in the motor accident on 7.5.1992 at about 10 p.m. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the mother and father of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 65,000/-as compensation for the death of Manoj. The present appellant Laxmi Narayan is the owner of the tractor, involved in the accident and respondent No. 1 Dhansingh was the alleged driver of the said vehicle.

The case of the appellant is that he never permitted Dhansingh to drive the vehicle and, therefore, he cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the act of Dhansingh. According to appellant, Dhansingh on his own was driving the vehicle at the time of accident without any authority and, therefore, award passed against the owner should be set aside.

It is an admitted fact that the appellant is a registered owner of the vehicle. The appellant in para 2 of his statement has admitted the fact that Dhansingh was a cook and was in his service and he took the tractor from his house. At that time appellant was not present in the house. In para 3 of his cross-examination he has admitted the fact that Dhansingh used to drive the tractor in his field and for that purpose he was getting Rs. 500/- per month as his salary. This admission clearly shows that Dhansingh was the driver of the tractor and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was driving the vehicle without his permission.

The Division Bench of this court in a case in Geetabai v. Hussainkhan 1985 ACJ 44 (MP), has held that the registered owner is always vicariously liable for payment of compensation. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon number of decisions like Shri Chandrakant Parsekar Vs. Smt. Rosy Simoes and Others, ; Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Sridhar and Others, and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sushila Tripathi and Others, . Sushila Tripathi''s case is a judgment of Division Bench of this court but the facts of the case are clearly distinguishable. In that case two police constables forcibly took the vehicle from the registered owner and met with an accident. The plea raised in that case was that the State is vicariously liable for payment of compensation. This plea was negatived as the State Government never authorised the constables to forcibly take the possession of the vehicle from the owner.

That is not the case here. The question as to whether the registered owner was vicariously liable was not involved in that case. The other decisions cited by learned counsel are also distinguishable. Thus, in my opinion the owner of the vehicle appellant is vicariously liable for payment of compensation.

The next question raised by counsel for appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is highly excessive. The Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 65,000/- for the death of deceased Manoj. As per finding of the Tribunal, the deceased was earning Rs. 400/- per month. Claims Tribunal has assessed the dependency at Rs. 300/-per month and applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 54,000/- for general damages and Rs. 11,000/- towards loss of love and affection, mental agony and funeral expenses.

After perusing the award, I do not find that the said amount can be said to be unfair or highly excessive. The next question contended by learned counsel is that the Claims Tribunal should have awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum instead of 12 per cent per annum. For this purpose he relied upon the judgment of Division Bench in M.P. State Road Trans. Corporation v. Bhagwati Prasad, M.A. No. 94 of 1998. In this case Division Bench has reduced the rate of interest from 12 per cent to 9 per cent in the facts and circumstances of that particular case.

In the said facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant has not pointed out any such facts which require sympathetic consideration. Thus, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Counsel''s fee Rs. 1,000/-.