JUDGMENT 1. - Ramjilal, who is the first respondent in this appeal, field an application under section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), claiming a sum of Rs. 73,304/- by way of damages for the injury sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on September 20, 1967. According to the averments in the said application the `Tempo' (Three wheeler Motor Vehicle meant for carrying passengers bearing No. RJQ 7214 was carrying passengers from Jodhpur to Ajmer on September 20, 1967. Ramjilal was one of the passengers from travelling in the said `Tempo' which belonged to the appellant Lalit Kishore and was driven by second respondent Kalyan Sharma. The third respondent, the Premier Insurance Company was the insurer of the `Tempo' during the relevant period. At about a distance of two miles ahead from Bilara the `Tempo' turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver with the result that Ramjilal received severe injuries on the left arm, so much so that the left arm had to be ampulated at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. Ramjilal therefore, filed an application under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and claimed compensation as aforesaid. The opposite parties opposed the claim. Respondent No. 2 after filing the written statement did not put in appearance and he was proceeded ex parte. The owner Lalit Kishore being a minor and his father the natural guardian having refused to put in appearance and contest the claim, the Tribunal appointed Shri Manak Chand Bhansali, Advocate to be the guardian-ad litem to represent the minor. Shri Manak Chand Bhansali filed written statement and denied that the vehicle was driven at a rash and negligent manner. It was pleaded that on September 20, 1967, that is, the date of accident neither the `Tempo' could be taken for hire to Ajmer, nor was the driver permitted to run the `Tempo' outside the Municipal limits of Jodhpur. It was further pleaded that the claimant took the `Tempo' from Jodhpur in collusion with the driver against the consent of the owner. It was further pleaded that the claimant took the `Tempo' from Jodhpur in collusion with the driver against the consent of the owner. The insurer in his written statement stated that the 'Tempo' was covered with a contract carriage permit to ply it within the Municipal area of Jodhpur City and it had no permit to ply beyond and the Municipal limits of Jodhpur. It was also pleaded by insurer that the `Tempo' did not possess even fitness certificate. The insurer also pleaded than its liability extends only to the extent of Rs. 4000/- and not beyond that amount. 2. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident took place on 20-9-67 as a rash and negligent act of the driver in driving tempo No. RJQ 7214? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as mentioned in para No. 11 of the petition, amounting to Rs. 73,304/-? 3. Whether the petitioner took away the tempo in collusion with the driver without the consent of the owner non-applicant No. 1? 4. Whether on 20-9-1967 the tempo No RJQ 7214 was not in a fit condition to be plied on hire? If so, what is its effect on the claim of the petitioner? 5. Whether the non-petitioner No 3 is not liable to pay the amount of compensation on the grounds mentioned in para Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of its written reply? 6. If issue No. 5 is decided against the non-petitioner No 3 whether the non petitioner. No. 3 is liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 4000/- only ? 7. Whether on 20-9-1967 the non petitioner No. 2 was not of driving the tempo RJQ 7214 as a servant or agent of the non-petitioner No. 1? 8. Relief? 3. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties; the Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the `Tempo' by the driver, It further found that on account of the accident the claimant Ramjilal suffered a permanent disablement of his left arm. The Tribunal decided issue No. 3 and issue No. 4 against the opposite party. The Tribunal decided issue No. 3 and issue No. 4 against the opposite party. It was held that the father of Lalit Kishore obtained registration certificate of the 'Tempo' in the name of his son Lalit Kishore on September 13, 1967 and got the `tempo' insured with the insurer namely, the Premier Insurance Company. The Tribunal further held that the driver Kalyan Sharma was the servant of Lalit Kishore on the date of the accident & that the relationship of master on servant existed between the two and that date. The Tribunal further held that the driver Kalyan Sharma was acting as driver under the direct control and supervision of his master and that being the case the owner of the Tempo' was vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of the driver Kalyan Sharma. It was also held that the rash and negligent act committed by the driver Kalyan Sharma was in the course of his employment and within the scope of his authority. The Tribunal then dealt with the question of quantum of compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 13,200/- by way of damages to the claimant Ramjilal. Out of this amount the Tribunal restricted the liability of the Premier Insurance Company unto Rs. 4000/- only. 4. It is against this award of the Tribunal that the owner Lalit Kishore has preferred this appeal. 5. Arguing the appeal Mr. Maheshwari, the learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that Lalit Kishore cannot be held vicariously liable for the rash and negligent act of the driver Kalyan Sharma as the latter took the vehicle outside the Municipal limits of Jodhpur without the consent of the owner and in direct violation of the contract carriage permit issued for the vehicle. The learned counsel has also urged that the learned judge of the Tribunal committed gross error in disbelieving the testimony of DW 1 Lalit Kishore and DW 2 Bhaboot Singh. According to the learned counsel, it is established from the statement of of DW 1 Lalit Kishore and PW 2 Bhaboot Singh that the driver was specifically or bidden from playing the `Tempo' on the date of the accident. According to the learned counsel, it is established from the statement of of DW 1 Lalit Kishore and PW 2 Bhaboot Singh that the driver was specifically or bidden from playing the `Tempo' on the date of the accident. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the claimant Ramjilal that the driver committed the accident by his rash and negligent driving of the `Tempo' during the course of employment and as such the lower court was fully justified in holding the owner vicariously liable for the acts of his servant. 6. It is well settled that a master is vicariously liable for the acts of his servant acting in the course of his employment. Unless the act is done in the course of employment, the servant's act does not make the employer liable. In other words, in order to hold the master liable for the act of his servant the act must be a wrongful & authorised by the master or a wrongful & unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master. It is equally well settled that if the servant at the time of the accident is not acting within the course of his employment but is doing something for himself the master is not liable. It may, however, be mentioned that in cases of vicarious liability there is a presumption that a vehicle is driven on the master business and by his authorised agent or servant, but this presumption is rebuttable. If it is proved on the evidence that the vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person & on own business the master cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligent act of such person. Again a master is not responsible for the negligence or other wrongful act of his servant simply because it is committed at a time when the servant is engaged on his master's business. The act must be committed in the course of business so as to form a part of it and not merely coincident in time with it. In the present care there is no room for any doubt that Kalyan Sharma was employed by Lalit Kishore or by his father Bhaboot Singh 'as driver of the `Tempo' which was purchased on September 11, 1967. In the present care there is no room for any doubt that Kalyan Sharma was employed by Lalit Kishore or by his father Bhaboot Singh 'as driver of the `Tempo' which was purchased on September 11, 1967. It is also not in dispute that this `Temp" was got registered under the Motor Vehicles Act on September 13, 1967 and on or before that date road-tax had also been deposited. From the statement of DW 3 Guman Singh it is further clear that the contract carriage permit for this `Tempo' was restricted only to the Municipal limits of Jodhpur. The question arises whether merely on the basis of the above fact, can it be concluded that the driver was not driving the vehicle on the date of the accident in the course of his employment. The contract carriage permit might have been restricted to the Municipal limits of Jodhpur but still the owner of the `Tempo' could have very well asked his servant carry passengers even beyond the Municipal limits of Jodhpur and in that case the driver acted in pursuance of the wishes of his master and carried the passengers outside the limits of Jodhpur. In such a case, the master cannot, in our opinion, escape the vicarious liability of the negligent act of the driver. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the statements of DW 1 Lalit Kishore and DW 2 Bhaboot Singh in order to persuade us to come to a conclusion that the driver Kalyan Sharma was strictly prohibited from plying the 'tempo' not only outside the Municipal limits of Jodhpur, but to ply it even within the Municipal limits of Jodhpur. DW I Lalit Kishore has deposed that on September 20, 1967 the `Tempo' was taken away by the driver Kalyan Sharma without the consent of his father. He has further deposed that the `Tempo' was lying idle before September 20, 1967, as the registration certificate and contract carriage permit had not been obtained by that time. He further says that since these essential documents had not been procured the driver was prohibited to take out the 'Tempo' from the garage. PW 2 Bhaboot Singh has deposed that he had instructed Kalyan Sharma not to ply the `Tempo' till the essential documents, such as, registration of the vehicle, the token and contract carriage permit were obtained. He further says that since these essential documents had not been procured the driver was prohibited to take out the 'Tempo' from the garage. PW 2 Bhaboot Singh has deposed that he had instructed Kalyan Sharma not to ply the `Tempo' till the essential documents, such as, registration of the vehicle, the token and contract carriage permit were obtained. He further deposed that upto September 20, 1967 none of these documents had come into his possession although the requisite amount of fees had been deposited earlier. From his statement it further appears that Bhaboot Singh was desirous to obtain contract carriage permit for this `Tempo' for whole of the region of Jodhpur, but he obtained only permit for Jodhpur Municipal limits. 7. We have thoroughly considered the statements of D.W. 1 Lalit Kishore and D.W. 2 Bhaboot Singh. We entirely agree with the learned Judge of the Tribunal that their statements are unreliable and cannot be acted upon. In our opinion, the owner of the `Tempo' has not succeeded in rebutting the presumption that the `Tempo' was not being driven on the master's business or in the course of his employment. Before parting with the case we would like to refer to the statement of P.W. 1 Ramji Lal. He has deposed that on the date of the accident the `Tempo' No. RJQ 7214 was standing outside the Bus Stand of Jodhpur and its driver Kalyan Sharma was calling for the passengers going to Ajmer. As Ramjilal was to go to Ajmer, he paid the hire charges and travelled in the `Tempo'. In our opinion, the above statement of Ramjilal appears to be convincing and reliable. 8. The Insurer namely, the Premier Insurance Company has filed cross-objection with the prayer that the insurer is not liable to pay any amount by way of damages. In our opinion, the cross objection is misconceived and if the insurer was aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, it should have filed an appeal. The cross-objection cannot be treated as an appeal as it was filed beyond the period of limitation for filing an appeal. That apart the insurer in its written statement has admitted its liability to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-. We, therefore, see no reason to exempt the insurer from liability or to reduce the extent of liability i e. Rs. 4000/-. That apart the insurer in its written statement has admitted its liability to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-. We, therefore, see no reason to exempt the insurer from liability or to reduce the extent of liability i e. Rs. 4000/-. The cross- objection fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. Since the respondent Ramjilal has not put in appearance and an amicus curiae had to be appointed, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******