- (1.) The only point which has been raised and pressed by Mr. Mehrish in this appeal is that Subhash Chand Meena alone has been held liable for the compensation but in fact the compensation should also be paid by the State of Rajasthan, who was owner of the vehicle. The case which is now in dispute before this court is that the jeep belonged to State of Rajasthan and the jeep met an accident by rolling down in the canal, resulting in death of Rajiv to whom compensation has been allowed.
(2.) The State of Rajasthan was owner of the jeep but the claim has been disallowed on the ground that jeep was not driven by the authorised driver Prem Chand. At the time of the accident the appellant was going on the work of the State. The appellant is holding that the post of Assistant Engineer and since he was going on the work of the State, even if it is assumed that it was not Prem Chand but the appellant who was driving then also the State would be liable, because for one reason he was going on the work of the State and secondly Prem Chand who was sitting as a driver in the vehicle allowed the appellant to drive the vehicle and the appellant drove the vehicle on behalf of Prem Chand and the State.
(3.) In this connection Mr. Mehrish has relied upon the judgement of this court in Smt. Gyarshi Devi, AIR 1982 Raj 30 in which this court has held : "Primarily a person can only be held responsible for the consequence of his own action. That in certain circumstances by reason of a particular legal relationship to the wrong-door a person may be held liable for the wrongful act of another person. Such a liability which is shown as vicarious liability in the law of tort arises when there is a relationship of master and servant and agent between the person held liable and the person who had committed the wrongful acts in order that the master may be held vicariously liable or the wrongful act of a servant, it is necessary that the wrongful act of the servant must fall within course of servant's employment. Similarly the principal can be held to be vicariously liable for the wrongful act of agent provided that the wrongful act falls within this category of vicarious liability. Master would, however, not be liable if the servant at the time of accident is not acting in the course of employment but is doing something for himself. A presumption has to be drawn that the vehicle is driven on the master's business and by his authorised agent or servant and then it is for the master to rebut the presumption. The master can be held vicariously liable even though the servant has usurped the job of another provided what he does is sufficiently clear connected in master's business and is not too gross a departure from the kind of thing he is employed to do." The above principles laid down in the above judgement would show that even when in that case driver of the truck let the loaded truck in charge of the cleaner, and the cleaner drove the vehicle resulting in accident then also it was held that the master was liable.;