J&K High Court Holds the Owner of the Vehicle Vicariously Liable for the Negligence of his Driver

Must Read

Plea Seeking Dream 11 to Be Declared as Betting Platform Dismissed by Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC dismissed a plea that alleged Dream 11 to be a betting platform, on the assertion that the...

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

Follow us

On 03.07.2020, Hon’ble Justice Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar heard the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mst. Hanifa and others, via video-conferencing. After hearing, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s Award.

Facts of the Case

Riyaz Ahmed Dar, the deceased, was a driver by profession. On 28.04.2004, he parked his vehicle near a workshop at Rawalpura, Srinagar. He was standing by the side of his vehicle.

The truck knocked the deceased down, resulting in his death. The driver of the truck was driving in a rash and a negligent manner. The claimants (here respondents) are the mother and siblings of the deceased. They sought a compensation of Rs 36 lakhs. On 23.04.2009, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs 5,03,000 to the claimants. Out of the awarded sum, an amount of Rs 10,000 each is payable by the driver and the conductor of the offending vehicle. The sum will carry an interest of 6% per annum. The sum should be paid in two months.

If not, a penal interest of 9% per annum is payable from the date of default. This award aggrieved the insurance company. Thus, the company filed an instant appeal in this Court.

Arguments of the Parties

The claimants argued that the Tribunal is right in its decision.

The appellant argued that the conductor drove the vehicle when the accident occurred. He was not authorized to drive the vehicle. Besides, he did not own a driving license. The insured has, thus, breached the policy condition. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the insured.

Court’s Analysis

The Court found that respondent no. 5, the driver permitted the respondent No. 6, conductor to drive the truck. Hence, the licensed driver permitted an unauthorized person to take charge. Due to this, the conductor caused the accident.

Moreover, the above fact is not disputed. The Tribunal referred to Baldeo Raj v. Smt. Deowati and Ors., 1986 (1) ACC 390 to support its decision. In the above case, the licensed driver allowed the unlicensed conductor to drive the vehicle, causing the accident. The owner was held vicariously liable.

The Court also referred to the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors., 1987 (2) SCC 654. The Supreme Court, in that case, held that the owner becomes vicariously liable in a case –

  • where an unauthorized person causes an accident,
  • when the owner had employed a licensed driver and
  • the driver had left the vehicle unattended.

The same is applicable in the present case. The insured-owner had not put an unlicensed person-in-charge of the vehicle. Thus, the insured in this case has not breached the policy condition. Hence, the insurer cannot escape its liability to indemnify the insured.

Court’s Decision

The respondent no. 4 – the owner is vicariously liable for the negligence of his driver. Thus, the appellant-insurer is liable to pay. There is no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s findings. Hence, the Court dismissed the appeal.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Plea Seeking Dream 11 to Be Declared as Betting Platform Dismissed by Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC dismissed a plea that alleged Dream 11 to be a betting platform, on the assertion that the game depends on skill &...

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped her in a dressing room,...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on behalf of all the minority...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women. The...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -