SITARAM MOTILAL KALAL versus SANTANUPRASAD JAISHANKAR BHATT

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 08-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
•\ 
B 
c 
• 
D 
E 
J 
F 
' 
G 
• 
H 
SITARAM MOTILAL KALAL 
v. 
SANTANUPRASAD JAISHANKAR BHATT 
February 8, 1966 
{K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Tort-Vicarious liability. 
The owner of a vehicle entrusted it to A for plying as a taxi. A drove 
the taxi, collected the fares, met the expenditure and handed the balance 
with accounts to the owner. 
B who used to clean the taxi was either 
employed by the owner or on ht. behalf by A. Presumably because A 
wanted another to assist him in dr;ving the I.Xi he trained B to drive the 
vehicle and took B for obtaining a licence for driving. While taking the 
test B caused bodily injury to the respondent. At the time of the accident, 
A was not present !n the vehicle. On the question whether the owner waa 
liable, 
HELD : (Per Hidayatullah and Bachawatt, JJ.) The owner was not 
liable. 
There is a presumption that a vehicle is driven on the master's business 
and by his authorised agent or servant but the presumption can be met 
It was negatived in this case. 
The acts of A and B v:ewed separately 
or collectively were not within the scope of their respective or even joint 
employment. The evidence did not disclose that the owner had employ· 
ed B to drive the taxi or given him permission ro drive the taxi or had 
asked him to take test for obtaining a driving licence; nor did it disclose 
that that the owner had given any authority to A to employ strangers to 
drive the taxi or to take the driving test. A was not present in the vehicle 
so that he could be said to be in control on behalf of his employer when 
the vehicle was driven. [537 H; 540 D; 542 F} 
For the master's liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful act 
authorised by the master or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing 
some act authorised by the master. 
The driver of a car takins 
the car on the master's busfness makes him vicariously liable if he 
commits an accident. 
But it is equally well-settled that if the servant, 
at the time of the accident, is not acting within the course of his employ-
ment but is doing something for himself the master is not liable. [537 
G] 
Rule in Storey v. Aston, (1868-69) 4 Q.B.D. 476, by Cockburn C.J., 
applied. 
Case law referred to. 
Ao. agent could make the principal liable only for acts done within 
the scope of the agent's authority or under the actual control of the 
principal. The extension of the doctrine that the act of the servant or the 
agent must be for the master's benefit, is not 
correct.~ It is doubtfu1 
whether the principle can be extended by the introduction of the doctrine 
of implied authority. [540 G] 
Smith \", Martin, [1911) 2 K.B. 775 and Barwick Y. English Joint 
Stock Bank, (1867) L.R. 2. Ex. 259, doubted. 
Per (Subba Rao, J. dissenting) : The owner waa liable. 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1966] 3 S.C.R. 
A was not a mere driver of the vehicle hut was the qWner's manager 
to carry on the business of running his taxi. 
A was, therefore, 
given 
the authority to do all things, necessary to keep the taxi in a good con-
diti"1' and to run it effectively, and if for plying the tlXi throughout day 
and night and during the absence of A an assistant was necessary to drive 
the vehicle, A could employ one. A employed B with the approval of tho 
owner to keep the vehicle in good condition. 
A in the interest of the 
employer instead of engaging a third party. as an assistant driver trained 
B as such and sought to obtain a licence for him. 
Therefore, A did not 
exceed the authority con~crrcci on him by the owner in employing B as 
a servant and permitting him to drive the vehicle in order to obtain 
a 
licence· for nssistin~ htm as a driver. 
[533 E-H] 
Case law referred to. 
Crv1L APPELLATE JuRJSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 615 of 1963. 
A peal from the judgment and decree dated April 5, 1957 of the 
Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 260 of 1952. 
M. V. Goswami, for the appellant. 
S. N. Prasad, J.B. Dadaclianji, 0. C. Mathur and Rani1der 
Narain, for the respondent. 
. 
SUBDA RAO, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. The Judgment 
of HIDAYATULLAH and BACHA WAT, J.J.-was delivered by HIDAYAT-
ULLAH, J. 
Sobba Rao, J. T regret my inability to agree. 
Sitararn Motilal Kalal, hereinafter called the !st defendant 
i& i,n agriculturist ha".ing lands at Kathwada village. He owned 
a motor-car bearin~ registration No. BYD 316. 
He entrusted 
the said car to Mohmmed Yakub Haji, herinafter called the 2nd 
defendant, for plyi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.