M.R. Sharma, J. - (1.) OM Parkash deceased, a young man of 25 years was run over by truck No. H.R.E. 1968 at 9.30 a.m. on October 31,1970 on Railway Road, Rohtak. This truck belonged to Krishan Kumar and was being driven at the material time by Banwari Lal Respondent No. 1. Mrs. Ram Piari a 60 years old widow and the unfortunate mother of the deceased victim of this accident filed a claim petition which came up for hearing before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak. The learned Tribunal decreed the claim of the claimant to the extent of Rs. 13,000/ -against Banwari Lal, Respondent No. 1 only, and exonerated the insurance company and Krishan Kumar the owner of the truck.
(2.) THE claimant has come up in this appeal with the prayer that the liability of the amount decreed should be ordered to fall on the shoulders of the insurance company also. So far as the insurance company is concerned, since Banwari Lal Respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving license at the material time, it cannot be held liable, but I see no reason why Krishan Kumar, the owner of the truck should escape the liability. It is not disputed that Banwari Lal Respondent No. 1 was driving the truck at the material times and in fact it has been so stated by Hukam Chand, Radha Kishan and Mst. Manbhari claimant's witnesses Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Banwari Lal Respondent No. 1 told a different story in the witness box. He said that he was appointed as a cleaner by Krishan Kumar Respondent in the year 1969 to work on this truck. On the other hand Krishan Kumar Respondent said that Banwari Lal Respondent No. 1 had been engaged by him as a cleaner to work, on his scooter tempo in the year 1969. At least from the statement of Krishan Kumar Respondent, one thing becomes quite obvious that Banwari Lal, Respondent No. 1, had been employed by him in some capacity. Mrs. Ram Piari, an old widow could possibly not collect evidence of the absolute type on this point. It is matter of common knowledge that owners of motor vehicles and public carriers even though when they, engage persons as cleaners to function on one vehicle do also utilize their services for other vehicles as well.
(3.) IF Banwari Lal Respondent No. 1 was shown to be an employee of Krishan Kumar Respondent No. 2 in 1969, their relations inter se of master and servant should be presumed to exist on the date of the accident also especially when Banwari Lal Respondent No. 1 was admittedly driving the truck belonging to this Respondent No. 2. It is not possible for me to believe that Banwari Lal Respondent Nos. 1. would be allowed to handle costly vehicle like a truck without the express or to it; connivance of the other thereof. I, therefore, hold that Banwari Lal Respondent No. 1 was driving the trunk of Krishan Kumar Respondent in the common course of his employment at the time when this accident occurred. The later was, therefore, vicariously responsible for the tortious act committed by him.;