Vijay Kumar Sharma vs Arti Phillip and Another

N.P. Singh, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the interim award dated 21.9.1995 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, In Claim Case No. 17 of 1995, awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimant.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are that on 24.12.1994 at about 2400 hours, a Maruti car bearing registration No. MOX 9296, belonging to the appellant, met with an accident at Barela Road on the National Highway No. 7. The car was being driven by respondent No. 2, driver. As a result of the accident, one Nirmal Phillip, husband of the claimant, who was travelling in the car, was killed. The claimant, wife of the deceased, filed an application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the M.V. Act'') for compensation on account of the death of her husband. She also filed an application u/s 140 of the M.V. Act for grant of interim compensation on the principle of no fault liability.

The claim petition was resisted by the appellant (owner of the Maruti car) on the plea that he had gone to Bhilai in connection with his business and while leaving for Bhilai, he had instructed his driver, namely, the respondent No. 2 to receive him at Jabalpur Railway Station on 25.12.1994, as he was to come back by Amarkantak Express which arrives at Jabalpur Railway Station at 2.30 a.m. in the morning. As per his instructions the driver, respondent No. 2, was supposed to reach the railway station by 2.30 a.m., but the respondent No. 2 on the pretext that the train arrives late at night and he would like to stay in the car, took the vehicle at 10.30 p.m. on 24.12.1994 from the wife of the appellant. However, instead of taking the car to the railway station straight, the respondent No. 2 went astray with the car to collect some of his friends, including the deceased Nirmal Phillip, to celebrate Christmas festival. The respondent No. 2 and his friends, including the deceased Nirmal Phillip, consumed alcohol to their capacity and went on a long drive to Barela. Under the influence of liquor, the respondent No. 2 lost control over the car and dashed the same against a culvert, as a result of which Nirmal Phillip received serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same on 25.12.1994.

The appellant''s submission before the Claims Tribunal was that there was no vicarious liability on his part to pay compensation for the negligence of the respondent 2, driver, who was driving the car against his instructions.

The Tribunal, however, awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-against the appellant, rejecting his objection. As against that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

Mr. V.K. Tankha, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in law, as well as on facts, in awarding compensation to the claimant on the principle of no fault liability by fastening vicarious liability on the part of the appellant to pay compensation to the claimant for the negligence on the part of his driver. He further contended that the interim award was passed without conducting an enquiry.

Mr. A.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, has contended that no enquiry whatsoever is necessary for awarding interim compensation. The contention of Mr. Jain is well-founded. In this connection, it would be relevant to mention the provisions of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section 140 of the M.V. Act, which read as under:

Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.-(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

xxx xxx (3) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person."

xxx xxx xxx It is evident from Sub-section (1) that the owner of the vehicle is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation in respect of death arising out of the accident and Sub-section (3) lays down that no enquiry whatsoever is necessary for making an order of interim compensation.

The Apex Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC), held that the owner is not only liable for the negligence of the driver if that driver is his servant acting in the course of his employment but also when the driver is, with the owner''s consent, driving the car on the owner''s business or for owner''s purpose. It is evident from the additional pleading of the appellant before the Claims Tribunal that he had instructed his driver (respondent No. 2) to attend him at Jabalpur Railway Station at the time of arrival of Amarkantak Express at 2.30 a.m. and the driver had proceeded to the railway station but astrayed with the car along with the deceased and the accident took place at about 12 o''clock in the midnight. The accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver in the course of his employment with the appellant and, therefore, the appellant is vicariously liable for the negligent act of his driver and is liable to pay compensation. It is well settled that no enquiry whatsoever is necessary for passing an award of interim compensation to the claimant.

For the reasons stated above, no case for interference in the impugned award is made out. There is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.