Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd.
Supreme Court of India, 25 March 1977, 2 judges, 1977 AIR 1735; 1977 SCR (3) 372; 1977 SCC (2) 745
Applying res ipsa loquitur, the Court found the company's manager negligent and held the company vicariously liable for a passenger's death because he was driving in the course of employment; the insurer's liability was limited to Rs. 15,000.
Facts
Purshottam Udeshi died on 18 December 1960 when a car owned by the first respondent company, driven by its Manager on company business from Nagpur to Pandhurna, struck a tree on the wrong side of a straight 15 foot road with such force that the engine was pushed back. He was travelling as a passenger free of charge. His widow and children claimed compensation under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, applied res ipsa loquitur, found negligence and awarded about Rs. 33,209 against the company. The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the company's appeal, holding that giving a lift was outside the Manager's employment and the deceased was a trespasser. The claimants appealed on certificate.
Questions before the Court
- Could rash and negligent driving be inferred under res ipsa loquitur without eye-witness evidence?
- Was the company vicariously liable for the Manager's negligence in carrying the deceased as a passenger?
- What compensation was payable, and was the insurer liable beyond the passenger cover in the policy?
What the Court held
- Res ipsa loquitur applies where the thing is under the defendant's management and the accident would not ordinarily happen if proper care were used. A car going to the extreme wrong side and striking a tree so violently showed negligence; the owners did not discharge the burden of disproving it or prove inevitable accident.
- The master is liable for the servant's wrongful acts done in the course of employment. The Manager was driving on the company's business, and given his high position it was presumed he had authority to give the lift; he was acting in the course of employment, so the company was liable.
- The rule in Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt was confirmed, including liability of an owner whose driver, with consent, drives on the owner's business. The High Court's finding was set aside.
- Compensation was fixed at Rs. 27,500 on basic pay of Rs. 425 a month. Section 95 did not require cover for gratuitous passengers, so the insurer was liable only up to the Rs. 15,000 passenger cover bought by extra premium.
Why it matters
The judgment explains when res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden to the defendant in road accident claims and holds an employer vicariously liable for a senior employee who gives a lift while driving on the employer's business. It notes the trend of making masters liable beyond the strict course of employment, and holds that Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 did not compel insurance for passengers not carried for hire or reward.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. For the application of the principle it must be shown that the car was under the management of the defendant and that the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who had the management used proper care.”
“Taking into account the high position of the driver who was the Manager of the company, it is reasonable to presume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the Manager had authority to carry Purshottam and was acting in the course of his employment.”
“As under section 95 the risk to a passenger in a vehicle who is not carried for hire or reward is not required to be insured the plea of the counsel for the insurance company will have to be accepted and the insurance company held not liable under the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 95, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
- Section 110, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Case and bench
- Parties
- Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr.
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 2071 of 1968
- Decided
- 25 March 1977
- Bench
- Kailasam, P.S., Beg, M. Hameedullah (CJ)
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Kailasam, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.