JUDGMENT
1. The matter in controversy here is with regard to the vicarious liability of the State of Punjab for the accident caused by the negligent driving of a Punjab Roadways bus, not by its driver, but the conductor there of.
2. While waiting to see off his sister at the bus stand, Gurdaspur, Sodagar Singh and his minor son Sanjeev Kumar were run over and killed by a Punjab Roadways bus PPN 219 which suddenly came there from behind without warning. This happened on July 8, 1971.
3. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the bus was being driven by bus conductor Surinder Singh and that it was the rash and negligent driving thereof that was the cause of the accident. A sum of Rs. 78,000/- was awarded as compensation to the widow mother and daughters of Sodagar Singh deceased.
4. The contention raised by Mr. G. S. Grewal, Advocate General, Punjab, was that it was no part of the duty of the bus conductor to drive the bus and this being so, no liability in respect of what he had done could be fastened upon his employer, the State of Punjab. In other words, it could not be held to be vicariously liable.
5. The stand taken by the State of Punjab in their return was that the bus had been parked at the bus stand and there was no passenger in it, nor was any driver or conductor on duty with this bus and, therefore, the State of Punjab could not be held liable for any negligent act of Surinder Singh, who was not acting in the course of his employment at that time.
6. The bus conductor Surinder Singh, on his part, denied that he had driven the bus or caused the accident. Indeed, his plea was that no accident had occurred with the bus PBN 219. According to him. Sodagar Singh deceased suddenly suffered a heart attack while standing at the bus stand and on account thereof he fell down dead.
7. There is ample material on record to show that there were both a driver and conductor on duty with the offending bus PBN 219 at the time of the accident. R.W.3 Madan Mohan, Adda. In charge, Gurdaspur, deposed in this behalf that as per the Duty Roster, Piare Lal was the driver and Surinder Singh was on duty as conductor on this bus at that time. This is corroborated by the testimony of R.W. 2., Piare Lal, the bus driver.
8. Further, there can be no manner of doubt that Sodagar Singh deceased was killed by the bus PBN 219. In this behalf, there is, in the first instance, the testimony of the bus driver R.W. 2 Piare Lal, who deposed that when he returned after having tea, he found that two persons had been run over and killed by this bus. There is then the consistent testimony of the claimants witnesses A.W. 5 Sarup Singh, A.W. 6 Narinder Nath and A.W. 7 Shanti Devi that the deceased was run over by this bus and further that it was being driven by the bus conductor Surinder Singh at that time. R.W. 1 Surinder Singh, the bus conductor, on his part, deposed that while he was giving tickets to passengers, the bus suddenly started moving and then the driver of the bus stopped it. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that it was indeed in an accident with this bus that Sodagar Singh deceased had been killed and also that it was being driven by the bus conductor Surinder Singh at that time. It is pertinent to note that no challenge was made to the testimony of any of the claimants witnesses that the bus was being driven by the bus conductor at that time.
9. Vicarious liability for this accident stands festened upon the State of Punjab on two counts. The evidence on record would show that the bus was left standing at the bus stand in such a manner that it could be started and driven away by any one. Reference may here be made to the statement of the bus driver R.W. 2 Piare Lal to the effect that the wires of the starting switch were loose and that the bus could be started by connecting these wires. Admittedly, no one was left to attend to the bus. Neither the bus driver nor the conductor claimed to be on duty on it at that time. The authority attracted to this situation would be Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Haribhai Vallabhbhari Darji, 1984 Acc CJ 72: (AIR 1983 Guj 210), where the driver while going away for meals left his bus unattended. The bus could not be locked and no key was necessary to start it. Any one could thus enter the bus and start it. It was held that the bus driver was negligent in leaving the bus in this manner and the bus owner was vicariously liable for the accident caused by the bus while being driven by an unauthorised person. A similar view was taken by this Court in Lajwanti v. Haryana State, 1985, Acc CJ 307: (AIR 1985 Punj & Har 71). Here, the bus was left unattended at a crowded bus stand while the driver and conductor went to have tea. A stranger got into the bus and drove it away and caused an accident. It was held that the bus driver was negligent in leaving the bus unattended and the owner was thus vicariously liable.
10. The other count on which the State of Punjab cannot avoid vicarious liability is the evidence of the bus conductor R.W. 1 Surinder Singh that the bus was stopped by the driver, implying thereby that the bus driver was in the bus when the accident occurred. This read with the other evidence on record would mean that when the bus was being driven by the bus conductor, the driver was in the bus too. An apt precedent to recall here is the judgment of this court in Ajit Singh v. Sham Lal, 1984 Acc CJ 255: (AIR 1984 Punj & Har 223). The accident here occurred when the cleaner of the truck was driving it with the driver sitting beside him. Here again, it was held that the owner was vicariously liable. To a similar effect was Ricketta v. Toos Tilling Ltd., (1915) 1 KB 644, where a bus was entrusted to the conductor for turning it. It was held that the owner was liable for the accident caused by the conductor while doing so.
11. Before parting with this matter, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme court in Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuaprasad Jaishankar Bhatt, 1966 Acc CJ 89: (AIR 1966 SC 1697), which was sought to be relied upon by Advocate General, Pb. In this case, the owner of a car had entrusted it to another for plying it as a taxi. The latter, in turn, gave it to the cleaner for a driving test. During this driving test, an accident occurred. It was held that at the time of the accident neither the person to whom the car had been entrusted for being plied as a taxi,. nor the cleaner to whom it had been lent,. were acting within the scope of their employment with the owner of the car and it could not, therefore, be said that the vehicle was in the control of or on behalf of the owner of the car. He was not thus vicariously liable. This situation bears no resemblance to the facts of the present case. As mentioned earlier, both the bus driver and the conductor were on duty on this bus, and the bus driver was with the conductor when the accident occurred and, what is more, he left it unattended in a negligent manner. There can thus be no escape from the conclusion that the State of Punjab was indeed vicariously liable for the negligent driving of the bus conductor.
12. The claimants, on their part, filed cross-objections seeking enhanced compensation. The evidence on record would show that Sodagar Singh deceased was about 44 years of age at the time of his death. He died leaving behind his 33 years old widow and four minor daughters ranging in age from 2 to 15 years, besides his widowed mother, who were all dependent upon him. A.W. 2 Nazir Singh, Senior Clerk in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur, deposed that Sodagar Singh was on duty as Superintendent with the Rural Development Agency and his total emoluments were over Rs. 980/- per month.
13. Keeping in view the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased in the context of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, (1979) 81 Pun LR 1: (AIR 1979 Punj & Har 50) the dependency deserves to be computed at Rs. 9000/- per annum with a multiplier of 16.This would work out to Rs. 1,44,000/-.
14. The compensation payable to the claimants is accordingly hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,44,000/- which they shall be entitled to along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 15000/- each shall be paid to the mother and daughters of the deceased and the balance to his widow. The amount payable to the minor claimants shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may deem to be in their best interest. The respondent shall be jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.
15. In the result, the cross-objections filed by the claimants are hereby accepted while the appeal filed by the State of Punjab is dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee Rs. 500/-.
16. Order accordingly.