JUDGMENT
Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. This accident took place on 28th January, 1979 at about 11.45 a.m. Shri Purushottam was driving a jeep recklessly, belonging to the State of Rajasthan which was in charge of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Chambal Command, Bundi resulting in the accident whereby Hari Mohan husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 206 of 1984 was crushed and died on account of serious injuries. Ram Baboo received serious injuries.
2. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the widow of Hari Mohan and daughter of Hari Mohan. Both Sita Bai and Ambika have filed this appeal for praying that the compensation is inadequate and in any case the State of Rajasthan should be directed to pay the compensation.
3. Now the crucial question which has emerged in these four appeals is that so far as negligence and rashness is concerned, it is proved that Purushottam was driving the vehicle at the relevant time on behalf of and as authorised by Hari Prasad. The question is whether for this the State of Rajasthan is liable or not.
4. It has come in evidence that the jeep was under the supervision of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Chambel Command, Bundi. He wanted to call officially one Member of Legislative Assembly Shri Manik Lal. He asked his driver to take the jeep and bring Manik Lal. The driver Hari Prasad in his turn took Purshottam Panwala with him. According to the statement of Hari Prasad Purushottam Panwala had some work with M.L.A. Manik Lal.
5. It has come into evidence that Hari Prasad got Purushottam Panwala seated on the driver’s seat. Hari Prasad and Purushottam both were in the jeep.
6. Now the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident took place when Hari Prasad was not in the jeep and the key of the jeep was in the appartment near the seat of the driver. According to the Tribunal Purshottam took the key and unauthorisedly drove the vehicle.
7. On this finding the Tribunal has held that the State of Rajasthan is not liable.
8. The Tribunal has held Hari Prasad driver also liable for negligence of leaving the jeep and the key in it without caring for its custody and safe custody of the same. It is argued by the learned Counsel for Sita Bai so also by Purushottam and Hari Prasad that in any case the liablility of the State cannot be exhonerated because the vehicle was sent for official work as per the entry in the log book and also as per the evidence of the driver Hari Prasad himself.
9. The Executive Engineer, wanted to call the Member of Legislative Assembly for some official work and Purushottam was taken for talking to the Member of Legislative Assembly by Hari Prasad driver.
10. In my opinion even if it is assumed that Hari Prasad driver left the key without a lock or without taking precaution of safety in such a manner that the key cannot be taken by anybody, then the leaving of the key uncared for was certainly an act which has exposed the jeep to be driven by anybody who can pick up the key.
11. That being so Hari Prasad is liable and since Hari Prasad was the authorised driver sent by the Executive Engineer and the jeep was of the State therefore the State is liable for the vicarious liability.
12. It has come in evidence that Hari Prasad himself was with Purushottam. In this respect evidence of Mahendra Singh is very important. He has stated that he saw the jeep which was first being driven by the Government driver and when the jeep came and was staying near the Surang Gate then the engine continued to remain in action. The driver changed the seat he came on sitting portion of the passenger and in front of driver seat and person who was sitting there came to driver’s seat. This person who came on the driver seat was Purushottam Panwala and he wanted to start the vehicle but the engine stopped then he started second time. All this goes to show that Purushottam Panwala was placed on the seat of the driver by Hari Prasad and then Purushottam Panwala tried to start the vehicle in presence of Hari Prasad.
13. In my opinion in either case Hari Prasad being the authorised driver sent by the Government officer Executive Engineer for the official purposes, liability would be of the State.
14. In such circumstances, the award is amended and modified to this extent that apart from the liability of Hari Prasad and Purushottam which has already been fastened by the Tribunal the State of Rajasthan would also be liable for payment Of the compensation.
15. Now coming to the compensation. The deceased Hari Mohan was of 27 years of age, at the time of death when the accident happened. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the dependency of benefit by the family was Rs. 250/- out of his income.
16. In my opinion since he was of 27 years at the time of death, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 32 years. The deceased was of 28 years at the time of death, and applying the multiplier of 32 years the amount of compensation would be Rs. 32 X 250 X 12 = 96,000/-. Rs. 5,000/- has been allowed as consortium to the wife but no amount has been allowed for loss of love and affection to Ambika daughter. I allow Rs, 2,000/- to Ambika for loss of love and affection. Thus, the compensation would be Rs. 96,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- = Rs. 1,03,000/-. The claimants would get 12 per cent interest also on this compensation from the date of application till the date of realisation.
17. The increase amount would not be payable by Hari Prasad because Hari Prasad has been left out by order dated 24-9-1986 in Appeal No. 206 of 1984.
18. In all other respects the award of the Tribunal both for compensation to Sita Bai and Ambika and the injured Ram Baboo is confirmed and upheld. The four appeals are decided as indicated above without any order as to costs.
19. The question of the liability of the State in such cases was examined by me in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 273 of 1984 Shanker Raj v. U.O.I. and Ors. decided on 18th April, 1986; and Civil Misc. Appeal No. 43 of 1982 Subhash Chandra v. Madan Mohan decided on 16th of October, 1986. In both these cases almost in similar circumstances I have held that the State is vicarious liable. When a vehicle is sent by the State officers then in that case the State cannot claim any immunity from the liability. In the present case I have already held that the vehicle was sent to summon and call the Member of Legislative Assembly for official work and therefore, even if Purushottam drove it on account of either express permission of the driver of the State or implied permission of even negligence in keeping the key out then in all cases the liability would be of the State, because of the liability of the official driver.
20. Consequently, the above appeal is decided in view of the two judgments mentioned above i.e. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 273 of 1984 Shanker Raj v. U.O.I. decided on 18th Sept., 1986 and Subhash Chand v. Madan Mohan S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 1983 decided on 16th October, 1986. The State of Rajasthan would also be liable for payment of compensation both to Ram Baboo injured as well as Sita Bai and other heirs of the deceased Hari Mohan.
21. All the four appeals are accepted in the above terms.