VICARIOUS LIABILITY

 

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Vicarious liability of the owner:

What is vicarious liability?

The law is settled that a master is vicariously liable for the acts of his servant acting in the course of employment.

    So far every motor accident that has occurred, because of negligent of the driver or conductor or other servant of the master, the owner of the motor vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimants before the claims tribunal.

   The concept of vicarious liability is entirely based on the relationship of master and servant.

  Under the motor vehicles act, 1988, the owner of the motor vehicle is vested with the three types of liabilities: viz., 1) statutory liability, (2) Fault liability and (3) vicarious liability.

  The compensation payable under sections 140 and 163 – A of the motor vehicles act is a statutory liability.

   The owners liability to pay compensation under sec 166 of MV act on proof of negligence of the driver is a liability under fault.

   The owner is liable to pay compensation for the relationship of master and servant. It is called vicarious liability.

   The doctrine of liability of the master for the acts of his servant is based on the maxim “respondent superior” which means “let the principal be liable” and it puts the master in the same position as if he had done the act himself.

   It also derives validity from the maxim “qui facit per alium facit per se”, which means “he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do himself”

  In pushpa Thakur VS Union of india, [1984 ACJ 559 (SC)] it was held that the principle of sovereign immunity of the state for the acts of the servants has no application for awarding compensation. In this case, the driver of the military truck was negligent and due to his negligence, the union of india is clearly held liable to pay compensation.

The servant act must be in the course of employment:

It was held in Gawrabai  Vs   Jagadish Prasad, [1984, ACJ 360 (bom)], that the master is bound by the acts of the servant even if the act is unauthorized or prohibited provided the act was within the scope of the service or employment.

     If the act of  the servant when wholly unauthorized and beyond the scope of employment the master is not liable for the servants negligence [state of U.P.  VS Deveshwat Prasad, 1983 TAC 172 (ALL)]

   In state of Maharastra  VS Kanchanmala [1995 ACJ 1021 (SC)], the supreme court has observed that in some cases, it can be found that an employee doing an authorized act in an unauthorized but not in a prohibited way, the employer shall be liable for such act because such employee was acting within the scope of his employment and in so acting, done some negligent or wrongful act.

   In Mariammal  VS M.Ramasubramaniam [ 199 ACJ 249 (Mad)], the car which has been stolen hit a person and he sustained injuries. The madras high court held that the vehicle was not driven by a person either in the employment of the owner or the person who drove the vehicle was authorized to drive the vehicle and hence the insurance company is not liable. But the claimants are entitled to compensation under ’no fault liability’