Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by M/s. ARRK Tooling Sermo India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Perfect Moulds Ltd.) challenging the judgment and award dated 21.07.2010 in MVC No.4481/2001 passed by the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, which awarded compensation of Rs.14,90,295/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the respondents (claimants) for the death of Kyalkond Ashok Raghavendra in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant was the employer of the deceased, who was driving a car owned by the appellant at the time of the accident. The Tribunal held the appellant liable as the owner of the vehicle. The appellant contended that the deceased was not acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident, as he was driving the car for his personal purpose without authorization. The Court analyzed the evidence and found that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was on official duty. The Court noted that the accident occurred at 1:30 a.m., and the deceased was returning from a personal visit. The Court held that the employer cannot be vicariously liable when the employee is not acting in the course of employment. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the liability of the appellant, but the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation and recover from the appellant if necessary.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Vicarious Liability - Employer's Liability - Section 173(1) MV Act - The appeal challenged the Tribunal's finding that the employer was liable for compensation for an accident caused by its employee while driving his own vehicle on a personal errand. The Court held that the employer cannot be held vicariously liable as the employee was not acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident. The burden to prove that the employee was acting in the course of employment lies on the claimant, which was not discharged. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Course of Employment - The claimants failed to produce any evidence to show that the employee was on official duty or acting in the course of employment when the accident occurred. The mere fact that the employee was an employee of the appellant does not automatically fix liability on the employer. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-employer is vicariously liable for the accident caused by its employee while driving his own vehicle on a personal errand, not in the course of employment.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The liability of the appellant is set aside. The insurance company is directed to pay the compensation and may recover from the appellant if necessary.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability
- course of employment
- employer's liability
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 173(1)
- burden of proof
