- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Joginder Nath And Another v. Shanti Devi And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of compensation granted to the respondents for the death of Girdhari Singh, who died in an accident involving a scooter owned by Joginder Nath and driven by Nirmal Singh. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 13,500/-. The appeal was filed by the scooter owner and the Premier Insurance Company Limited. The Insurance Company’s appeal was found incompetent with respect to the quantum of compensation, whereas the appeal by the owner was considered competent.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether evidence led on issue No. 1, relating to negligence of the driver, was contrary to the framing of the issue and whether this caused injustice to the appellant.
- Whether the owner of the scooter is vicariously liable for the accident caused by the driver, considering the requirement to prove that the driver was acting in the discharge of his duties as a servant.
- Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was appropriate, specifically regarding the fixation of the deceased’s age and the span of life, and the deduction of provident fund contributions from the compensation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The evidence led on issue No. 1 was contrary to the issue framed, as the issue mentioned the owner driving negligently, but evidence showed the driver was Nirmal Singh, not the owner, thus creating a new case not pleaded.
- The owner contended that vicarious liability does not arise unless it is proved that the driver was acting in the discharge of his duties as a servant, which was not established, including the fact that it was not proved Nirmal Singh was an employee of the owner.
- The quantum of compensation was challenged on two grounds: the Tribunal fixed the deceased’s remaining span of life at 15 years without sufficient evidence, and the amount of provident fund contributions paid by the deceased should have been deducted from the compensation.
Respondents' Arguments
- No objection was taken at trial regarding the driver’s identity; the parties understood that the driver was Nirmal Singh, and no evidence was led to contradict this.
- The owner’s liability arises from the presumption that the driver was acting on his behalf, and this presumption was not rebutted as no evidence was led by the owner to the contrary.
- The Tribunal’s fixation of the deceased’s age and the span of life was reasonable and not a ground for interference on appeal.
- The deduction of Rs. 2,000/- on account of provident fund contributions was agreed upon by both parties.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Thambi Motor Service, Salem v. Management Thambi Motor Service, A.I.R 1963 Madras 193 | Presumption of vicarious liability of owner for acts of driver employed by him | Applied to hold that the owner is liable for the accident caused by the driver, as the presumption was not rebutted by evidence. |
| State v. Bhagwan Singh, A.I.R 1963 Rajasthan 81 | Presumption of vicarious liability in relation to servant's acts | Referred to support the presumption that the driver was acting on behalf of the owner. |
| Dinabai R. Wadia v. Farukh Mobedjina, A.I.R 1958 Bombay 218 | Principle of vicarious liability of master for servant's negligent acts | Used to reinforce the legal basis for holding the owner liable for the driver’s negligence. |
| Dr. Ram Saran v. Shrimati Shakuntala Rai, A.I.R 1961 Punjab 400 | Deduction of provident fund contributions from compensation awarded | Applied to justify the deduction of Rs. 2,000/- from the total compensation amount. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the framing of issue No. 1 and found no injustice to the appellant in leading evidence that the driver was Nirmal Singh rather than the owner, as the pleadings indicated the vehicle was driven by a driver whose name was not specified. No objection was raised at trial regarding this evidence, and the parties understood the case accordingly. The court rejected the contention that this constituted a new case.
Regarding vicarious liability, the court held that since the scooter belonged to the owner and was driven by Nirmal Singh at the relevant time, it is presumed the driver was acting on behalf of the owner. The owner failed to rebut this presumption by leading contrary evidence. Therefore, the owner is liable for the accident caused by the driver.
On the quantum of compensation, the court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s age at 45 years and the remaining span of life at 15 years, noting that such fixation is a rule of thumb and minor deviations are insufficient grounds for interference. The court agreed that provident fund contributions should be deducted from the compensation and accepted the parties’ agreement to deduct Rs. 2,000/-.
Consequently, the court partially allowed the appeal by reducing the compensation from Rs. 13,500/- to Rs. 11,500/-, confirming the remaining aspects of the Tribunal’s order.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is allowed partially to the extent of reducing the compensation awarded by Rs. 2,000/- to account for provident fund contributions. The compensation is thus reduced from Rs. 13,500/- to Rs. 11,500/-. In all other respects, the Tribunal’s order is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
The decision directly affects the parties by adjusting the compensation amount but does not set any new precedent beyond affirming established principles of vicarious liability and compensation assessment under the Motor Vehicles Act.
1. This is an apeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of compensation to the respondents for the death by accident of one Girdhari Singh, husband of respondent 1 and father of respondent 2 and 3.
2. There is no dispute that Girdhari Singh was killed by accident caused by scooter belonging to Joginder Nath and driven by Nirmal Singh and that the res-respondents are his dependents. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs. 13,500/-. An apeal has been filed by the owner of the scooter as well as by the Premier Insurance Company Limited. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it is not entitled to appeal against the quantum of compensation and as a matter of fact, in view of the clear terms of section 96(2), the present appeal is not at all competent by the Insurance Company on any ground on which the claim was contested before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. However, the appeal is competent on behalf of the owner of the vehicle.
3. The first contention advanced on behalf of the owner is that evidence has been led on issue No. 1 contrary to its frame and, therefore, a new case that has not been pleaded has been made out. Issue No. 1 is in these terms:—
“Whether Joginder Nath drove the scooter negligently, and this resulted into an accident which caused the death of Girdhari Singh?”
4. Evidence has been led to prove that it was Nirmal Singh and not the owner Joginder Nath who was driving the scooter. It is, therefore, argued that the frame of the issue has caused injustice to the appellant. This contention has to be rejected because, in my opinion, no injustice has at all been caused to the appellant. In the application, it is clearly stated that the vehicle was owned by Joginder Nath and it was, at the time of the accident driven by a driver. The name of the driver is not mentioned. In evidence, it was brought out that the vehicle was being driven by Nirmal Singh Driver. No objection was taken to this on the ground that it was a fact outside the pleadings or the issues. As a matter of tact, the parties very well understood their case and allowed evidence to be led to prove as to who was the person who was driving the vehicle. It is significant that no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company or the owner to the contrary. As no objection was taken to the evidence when led, on this part of the case, it is now too late to permit it to be raised. I would accordingly reject the first contention.
5. The second contention of the learned counsel is that the master is not liable for the vicarious liability of his servant unless it is proved that the servant was acting in the discharge of his duties. It is maintained that as a matter of fact, it is not even proved that Nirmal Singh was an employee of Joginder Nath. However, this contention is of no avail to the learned counsel for the appellant because it is admitted that the scooter did belong to Joginder Nath and it is proved on record that it was at the relevant time being driven by Nirmal Singh. In this situation, it has to be presumed that the scooter was being driven by Nirmal Singh for and on behalf of the owner. In this connection, reference may be made to Workers employed in Thambi Motor Service, Salem v. Management Thambi Motor Service . A.I.R 1963 Madras 193, State v. Bhagwan Singh . A.I.R 1963 Rajasthan 81, and Dinabai R. Wadia v. Farukh Mobedjina . A.I.R 1958 Bombay 218. This presumption could have been rebutted by the owner of the vehicle: but the owner chose not to lead any evidence. Thus the liability of the owner does arise in law for the accident caused by Nirmal Singh who was driving the owner's vehicle. Therefore, the second contention has no merit and is rejected.
6. The last contention of the learned counsel is with regard to the quantum of the compensation awarded. The first argument advanced is that the span of life which the deceased might have lived is fixed at 15 years without any evidence, or in other words, the argument is that the age of the deceased, as stated by the son, was 45-50 years and it is contended that 10 years should have been taken to be the age and the remaining span of life should have been fixed at 12 years. I am, however, unable, to agree with this contention because it was for the Tribunal to fix the age of the deceased. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 45 years and on that basis, he fixed the span of life at 15 years. Moreover, the fixation of the span of life is, more or less, a rule of the thumb and a mere minor divergence to this side or that side is no ground for departing from the decision of the Tribunal in appeal. Therefore, no fault can be found with the decision of the Tribunal with regard to fixing the remaining span of life of the deceased at 15 years.
7. The other argument advanced is that the deceased was subscribing to provident fund and, therefore the amount of the provident fund should have been deducted from the amount of compensation fixed. This contention is supported by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Ram Saran v. Shrimati Shakuntala Rai . A.I.R 1961 Punjab 400. and the learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the correctness of this proposition. The only question that remains to be settled is—what is the amount of provident fund which should be deducted. Counsel for the parties are agreed that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- should be deducted on this score.
8. I accordingly a low this appeal partially to this extent that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- shall be deducted from the compensation fixed by the Tribunal. The result, therefore, is that the amount of compensation fixed at Rs. 13,500/- is reduced to Rs. 11,500/-. In other respects, the order of the Tribunal is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.
9. Appeal allowed partially.
Alert