Owner Responsible For Employee’s Mischief During Course Of His Duties Resulting In Accident: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Court held that the owner is vicariously liable for the driver’s actions, even if unauthorized, as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 fastens liability on the owner, and an employee’s mischief during duty does not absolve them when it results in an accident, causing third-party injuries.
Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Motor Vehicles Act), liability is fastened on the owner, even if the owner did not personally drive the vehicle. While the owner has the right to take action against the employee for any misconduct, if the employee’s mischief during the course of his duties results in an accident and causes injuries to a third party, the owner must bear the responsibility.
A Single Bench of Justice Dr V R K Krupa Sagar observed, “In fact, holding the owner liable for accidents caused by the driver serves public policy purposes. The driver is considered as agent of the owner and the owner is responsible for the drivers actions. Therefore, owner is vicariously liable for the actions of the driver.”
The Court added, “The doctrine of respondeat superior (let the master answer) holds the owner liable for the actions of the driver. This doctrine is based on the idea that the owner has control over the driver and is responsible for ensuring that the driver acts responsibly.”
Advocate B v Krishna Reddy represented the Appellant, while the Respondents were represented by Central Government Counsel G. Arun Showri.
Brief Facts
A mini-van (vehicle) used for MMS services by the postal department was being driven by its employee, who held a valid license. One night, the driver allowed the Appellant, a pastor, to board the vehicle. However, while driving near the coastal center, he failed to exercise caution and reasonable care, causing the vehicle to go into a pit and overturn. As a result, the Appellant sustained serious injuries.
The Appellant filed a petition before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) against the driver and the Senior Superintendent of the Post Office (Owner), seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Before the Tribunal, the driver contended that the Appellant had not traveled in the vehicle and had not sustained any injuries, while the Owner argued that the driver was not authorized to carry passengers unauthorizedly and sought dismissal of the claim.
Considering the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was in the vehicle and that the vehicle suffered the accident because of rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It assessed compensation under various heads and awarded the Appellant a total compensation of Rs. 2,79,400/-, and held that the compensation was required to be paid only by the driver of the vehicle, not by the owner.
Aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, the Appellant approached the High Court, arguing that even if the Appellant was an unauthorized passenger, the law does not permit the owner to be exonerated, as the Owner/Master is liable for the acts of its driver/agent. The Appellant contended that the erroneous award required interference.
The owner contended that the Tribunal had rightly absolved the owner from liability and no interference was required.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the evidence on record amply established that the Appellant was an unauthorized passenger in a Government vehicle, and further that the driver of the vehicle was not supposed to carry any such unauthorized passenger, but he carried him nonetheless.
The Court stated, “The doctrine of respondeat superior (let the master answer) holds the owner liable for the actions of the driver. This doctrine is based on the idea that the owner has control over the driver and is responsible for ensuring that the driver acts responsibly.”
The Court noted that the Motor Vehicles Act fastens liability on the owner though the owner never drove the vehicle by himself.
The Bench observed, “…it is clear that the R2/ owner of the offending vehicle is to shoulder the responsibility. For the mistake committed by its employee, it is entitled to take action against him. However, when such mischief on part of its employee during the course of his duties when resulted in accident and injuries to a third party the owner shall shoulder the responsibility. The legality of the award was not challenged before this court by the respondents herein. In such circumstances, this court has to state that the responsibility that was fastened on R1 by the tribunal should also be extended to fastening liability on R2 as it has been the owner of the offending vehicle”.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and modified the Tribunal’s order to the extent of fastening liability upon the owner, directing him to deposit the awarded amounts, along with interest and costs, before the Tribunal within two months.
Cause Title: Pulavarthi Daniyelu v. Kollam Sudhakara Babu Prakasam District & Ors. (Neutral Citation: APHC010264502012)
