Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Prasad Roy vs Yogeshwar Mirdha on 10 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 160 of 2010
Birendra Prasad Roy .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Yogeshwar Mirdha
2. The Vice President, M/s Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd.
3. The Executive Engineer, Drilling Water and Sanitation Mechanical
Division, PHED, Dumka
4. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Deoghar
.... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Harendra Kr. Singh, Advocate
C.A.V. ON 25 .03.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 10 / 05 / 2022
1. The driver of the offending vehicle has preferred the instant
appeal against the judgment and award of compensation in MACT Case
No.12/2008 for the death of Nisha Devi in a motor vehicle accident
caused by one ITM-10-Rig machine bearing Registration No. KA-02M-
4086 of the Drilling Water and Sanitation Mechanical Division, PHED
Dumka.
2. On 09.03.2005 the drilling machine of the PHED Department
Dumka rammed into the house of the deceased resulting in its collapse
and death of occupant Nisha Devi.
3. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- to
be paid to her son Yogeshwar Mirdha under Section 163A of the Motor
Vehicle Act on a notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. Since the
deceased was 65 years old woman a multiplier of 5 was taken. The vehicle
was not insured at the relevant time of the accident, and the liability to pay
the compensation amount was fixed on the Sanitation Department, PHED,
Dumka and the driver of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
4. This appeal has been preferred firstly, on the ground that the
claim Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the judgment and award in the
instant case. Secondly, the 2nd party being an authority within the meaning
of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it was not the
driver but the department which was liable to pay the compensation
amount.
5. The first ground is without any basis and no reason has been
assigned as to how the Tribunal passing the Judgment and Award had no
jurisdiction. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Motor
Accident Claims are constituted by the State Govt. under Section 165 of
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The question of jurisdiction was neither
raised before the Tribunal nor any issue was framed regarding it.
6. It has been held in State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala
Vijaysing Shirke, (1995) 5 SCC 659 that liability of the department
depends on the fact whether the accident took place when the vehicle was
being used during the course of employment.
"19. The crucial test is whether the initial act of the employee was
expressly authorised and lawful. The employer, as in the present case the
State Government, shall nevertheless be responsible for the manner in
which the employee, that is, the driver and the respondent executed the
authority. This is necessary to ensure so that the injured third parties who
are not directly involved or concerned with the nature of authority vested
by the master to his servant are not deprived from getting compensation.
If the dispute revolves around the mode or manner of execution of the
authority of the master by the servant, the master cannot escape the
liability so far third parties are concerned on the ground that he had not
actually authorised the particular manner in which the act was done. In
the present case, it has been established beyond doubt that the driver of
the vehicle had been fully authorised to drive the jeep for a purpose
connected with the affairs of the State and the dispute is only in respect
of the manner and the mode in which the said driver performed his duties
by allowing another employee of the State Government, who was also
going on an official duty, to drive the jeep, when the accident took place.
Once it is established that negligent act of the driver and respondent was
"in the course of employment", the appellant-State shall be liable for the
same".
7. It is an admitted position that the vehicle was owned by the
Govt. department used for drilling deep borings. There is nothing on
record to show that vehicle was being used by the driver for private
purpose. The instant appeal reflects a sorry state of affair where instead of
satisfying the award of compensation the litigation has been dragged to
this Court without any sound or reasonable ground. The Award was jointly
and severally against both the appellant who was the driver of the vehicle
and the PHED department. No appeal has been preferred by the
Department, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of it to have satisfied
the award and to have proceeded against the driver as per law for any
breach of terms and condition of the employment.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal stands
dismissed.
The PHED Department, Dumka is directed to satisfy the award
of compensation within a month of this order by paying the amount to the
Tribunal, failing which the Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed
according to law for realizing the amount. The compensation amount to be
disbursed to the claimants after their proper identification.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 10th May, 2022
AFR / AKT
