numbereye witness was examined.
the motor accidents claims tribunal jabalpur found that the accident of the motor vehicle was as a result of negligent driving of the vehicle by the manager madhavjib hai mathuradas ved the driver of the vehicle.
the first claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 to 8 are the children of one purshottam tulsidas udeshi who met with his death in a motor car accident on 18th december 1960 when he was travelling in the car which was driven by madhavjibhai mathuradas ved the manager of the first opponent companypany m s. ranjit ginning and pressing company private limited in a rash and negligent manner near a village called chincholivad which was 16 miles from saoner.
from the judgment and order dated 20 4 1967 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in misc.
the opposite parties the owner and the insurance companypany opposed.
they claimed a companypensation of rupees one lakh.
31209.15 as general damages in addition to rs.
33209.15 with companyts and directed that the insurance companypany shall indemnify the owner to the extent of rs.
the car which was .a hindustan ambassador saloon was insured with second opponent union fire accident and general insurance company limited the deceased was aged 58 years at the time of his death and according to the petitioners was earning annually about rs.
to the plaintiff.
the plaintiff and fellow workmen were given a lift on one of the defendants lorries with the companysent of his foreman and of the driver of the lorry.
on a sunday evening the plaintiff in the companyrse of that journey was injured by the negligence of the driver of the lorry and the plaintiff brought an action against the defendants claiming damages for his injuries.
2000 as special damages for funeral and post funeral expenses.
the vehicle will have to proceed on the left hand side of the road.
the owner first opponent preferred an appeal to the high companyrt impleading the claimants and the insurance companypany as respondents against the award passed by the.
holding that so far as the owners are companycerned pur shottam was numberbetter than a trespasser the high companyrt held that the owners were number vicariously liable.
the tree against which the car dashed was uprooted about 9 to 10 inches from the ground.
the learned companynsel placed reliance on the decision in houghton pilkington.
the tribunal fixed special damages for funeral and post funeral expenses in cluding transport charges at rs.
claims tribunal.
15000.
the cart and that the defendant was number liable 1 1951 1 all.
1 the younger brother of the deceased purshottam udeshi who went to the spot soon after the accident was examined.
the defendants a firm of companytractors were engaged in building work at an aerodrome and they provided lorries to companyvey their employ ees to the various places of their work on the site.
9316.83 per annum.
this item is number disputed.
the tribunal accepted the documents produced by the claimants regarding the income of the de ceased and fixed it at rs.
the high court did number decide the question as to whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving or the quantum of compensation to which the claimants were entitled to as it allowed the appeal by the owner on the ground that the owner cannumber be held vicariously liable for the act of madhavjib hai in taking purshottam as a passenger as the said act was neither in the companyrse of his employment number under any au thority whatsoever and that there was numberevidence that the owners of the vehicle were aware that purshottam was being taken in the car as a passenger by their manager madhavjib hai.
the high companyrt did number go into this question but the tribunal after taking into companysideration the various facts fixed the companypensation at rs.
on either side of the road there were fields.
ratnaparkhi for respondent number 1.
but p.w.
the traffic manager of the defendants pleaded that he had never given instructions to the foreman that he should arrange for lifts being given to the plaintiff and his fellow workmen on sundays and that the foreman had numberauthority to companysent to the plaintiffs riding on the lorry.
it also found that the first respondent the owner of the companypany is liable to pay companypensation to the claimants on account of the negligence of their employee madhavjibhai which caused the death of purshottam tulsidas udeshi.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2071 of 1968.
regarding the compensation payable the tribunal fixed rs.
the fields were of lower level.
the third case that is referred to by the high companyrt is conway v. george wimpey company limited 1 .
in an action against the defendent for damages for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff it was held that the existence of an emergency gave numberimplied authority to the servant to invite the plaintiff into.
on an applica tion by the claimants the high companyrt granted a certificate and thus this appeal has companye before this companyrt.
1 in that case the plaintiff at the request of a servant of the defendant got into the defendants cart which was then in the chrage of the servant in order to render assistance to anumberher servant of the defendant who had been rendered unconscious by an accident.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kailasam j. this is an appeal by certificate under article 133 1 a of the companystitution granted by the high court of madhya pradesh.
the defence was that the plain tiff when on the lorry was a trespasser.
in the cab of each lorry was a numberice indicating that the driver was under strict orders number to carry passengers other than the employees of the defendants during the companyrse of and in connection with their employment and that any other person travelling on the vehicle did so at his own risk.
the road was 15 feet wide and was a straight metalled road.
the appellants filed a claim for compensation of a sum of rupees one lakh under section 110 of the motor vehicles act before the claims tribunal jabalpur.
he stated that he went with one of his relatives and an employee of his brothers employer and saw that the car had dashed against a tree while proceeding from nagpur to pandurna.
the tree was on the right hand side of the road four feet away from the right hand side of the main metalled road.
naunit lal and miss lalita kohli for respondent number 2.
rameshwar nath for the appellants r. lalit and a.g.
the position was stated by lord justice denning in young v. edward box and co. limited 1 .
the plaintiff fell out of the cart and was injured through the negligence of the servant in charge of the cart in causing the horse to start.
the steering wheel and the engine of the car receded back on drivers side and by the said impact the occupants died and front seat also moved back.
the second item is a sum of rs.
first appeal number 104/66 .
the other hand it supports the companytention of the companynsel for the appellants that when the manager was driving the car for the purposes of the companypany it was in the companyrse of his employment.
