PUSHPABAI PURSHOTTAM UDESHI & ORS. versus RANJIT GINNING & PRESSING CO, (P) LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 25-03-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
PUSHPABAI PURSHOTTAM UDESHI & ORS. 
.. 
. 
v. 
RANJIT GINNING & PRESSING CO, (P) LTD. & ANR. 
March 25, 1977 
[M._ H. BEG, C.J. AND P. S. KAILASAM, J.] 
!.fotor Vechicles Act 1939-S. 95, 110-Liability of insurance con1pany-
Death of passenger not for reward-Quantum of compensation-Annual income 
if on the basis of basic wa?es. 
Torts-Negligence-Ru ipso loquitur-Rash and negligent driving-Meaning 
of-Rationalae--course of employment-Scope of employment-If dril·er gh·cs 
a lift without charging anything-If master liable-Vicario_us liability-Master 
and servant. 
Purshottam Udeshi was travelling in a car which was driven by 1..Janager of 
the first respondent company. The car was insured with the second respondent. 
The car dashed against a tree while proceeding fro°' Nagpur to Pandurna. 
Purshottam, Viho was aged 58. years at that time, died in the accident. His 
annual income was about Rs. 9000/-. The widow and children of Purshottam 
fiied a claim for compensation for a sum of Rs. 1 1ac under section 110 of the 
~fotor Vehicles Act, 1939, before the Claims Tribunal. The respondents denied 
that the vehicle was driven in a rash or negligent manner and contended that 
the vehicle at the time of accident was perfectly in sound condition. It \\·as 
also contended that Pursbottam was travelling in the said vehicle on his ov.n 
responsibility and for his own purpose absolutely gratis and not on behalf of 
or at the instance of respondent No. 1 or the driver of the vehicle and, there-
fore, the claimants were not entitled_ to any compensation. The respondent 
pleaded inevitable accident. 
The Tribunal found that the accident was as a result of negligent driving of 
the vehicle by the ~lanager. It also. found that the first respondent the owner 
of the company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants on account of 
negligence of their· employee. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 31,209 /- as general 
damages on the basis of 5 years' earning less the amount which the deceased 
might have spent on himself and Rs. 2,000/- as special damages for funeral 
and post-funeral expenses. The Tribunal took into account the pay, D.A., 
conveyance allowance etc. for the purpose of determining income of the 
deceased. Both the respondents filed appeals in the High Court. The IIigh 
Court did not decide the question as to whether the accident was due to rash 
and negligent driving or the quantum of compensation allowed by the Tribunal 
was -proper or not on the ground- that the respondent No. 1 cannot be held 
vicariously liable for the act of their 
~tanager in taking Purshottam as a 
passenger as the said act was neither in the course of his employment nor under 
any authority whatsoever; that no evidence wa.9' led to show that the respondent 
No. 1 was aware that Purshottam was being taken in the car as a passenger 
by their 1-fanager. The High Court held- that Purshottam was no better than 
a trespasser as far as respondent No. 1 is concerned and that, therefore, res-
pondent No. 1 cannot be made vicariously Hable. 
. 
Jn an appeal by certificate, the appellants claimants contended : 
(1) That the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the 
~tanager of respondent No. 1. 
(2) The accident took place during the course of the employment of the 
driver. 
ff 
Allowing the appeal, 
lIELD : lll The car was being driven rashly and negligently. Although no 
eye \\itnes5 was examined P.W.I. the brother of the deceased \\rho went to the 
spot soon after the accident was examined. 
He depcsed that the car dashed 
·~
• 
• 
.,J
( 
• 
• 
k 
PUSHPABAI v. RANJIT GINNING co; (Kai/asam, 1.) 
373 
•against a tree. The tree was on the right hand side of the road, 4 ft. away 
A 
from the right-hand side of the main metalled road. The road was 15_ft. wide 
'3.nd was a metalled road. On other side of the road there were fields at lower 
Jevel. The tree against vlhich the car dashed was uprooted ·about 9 to 10'' 
from the ground. The car dashed so violently that it was broken in the front 
$ide. The vehicle struck sO violently that the machine of the car went back 
about a foot from its original position~ The steering wheel o~ the engine of 
the car receded back on the driver's side and the said -impact on the driver's 
side and by the said impact the occupants died and front seat also moved back. 
u-
"'Ihe witness was not cross-examined on these facts; The maxim of "Res i_P5a 
loquitur" clearly appl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.