M. K. SHAH, S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) THE questions therefore which arise and which are required to be decided in this appeal are the following ones:- (1) Whether the owner of the vehicle i. e. opponent No. 2 is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimants arising out of an act of rash and negligent driving by his employee i. e. the driver opponent No. 1 ? (2) Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the amount of only Rs. 6000. 00 as compensation ?now so far as the first question is concerned the Tribunal relied on the evidence of the owner to the effect that he had prohibited opponent No. 1 to carry any passengers from the road. He had instructed both the driver and the conductor that they should not allow anybody to board the truck and that only employees numbering six should be carried in the truck. In our opinion the Tribunal erred in holding that the opponent No. 2 was not liable merely because he had prohibited the driver and the conductor from carrying any passengers in the truck for hire or reward and that in spite of such prohibition the deceased was carried in the truck and met with the accident resulting in his death. ( 3 ) THE legal position in this connection is very clear and reliance had been placed by Mr. Shah for the appellants on Amthiben Maganlal Wd/o Maganlal Pranlal Mistry v. Superintendent Geophysicist O. N. G. C. and Others 17 G. L. R. 910. The observations at page 930 are important and they read thus:- the material question which always arises in such cases when there is collision by negligent driving of the driver would always have to be resolved by reference to the fact that whether at the time of negligent driving which injured these persons he was driving the vehicle for the masters purpose or on the frolic of his own. Therefore even if he had given a lift by inviting the passengers injured by his negligence while driving for the masters purpose he could surely claim damages from the master. Therefore even if he had given a lift by inviting the passengers injured by his negligence while driving for the masters purpose he could surely claim damages from the master. The legal position in this connection has been exhaustively considered in the decision in L. I. C. v. The legal Representatives of deceased Naranbhai 13 G. L. R. 920 at pages 930-932 where their Lordships decision in Sitaram v. Santnuprasad A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 1967 was considered which settled the law by laying down that a master was victoriously liable for the acts of his servant acting in the course of his employment. For the masters liability to arise the act must be a wrongful act authorised by the master. The driver of a car taking car on masters business made him vicariously liable if he committed an accident. Still more important observations appear at page 932 and they would apply with considerable force to the facts of the present case. After referring to the settled position these observations were made in the following terms:that is why in Stone v. Taffe 1974 (3) A. E R. 1016 the Court of Appeal held even in the context of an act of a servant prohibited by the master that a prohibi- tion by an employer of what a servant might or might not do was not by itself conclusive of the scope of his employment against third parties by the servant. But the injured could not hold the employer liable where he himself knew of the prohibi- tion and had an opportunity to avoid the danger or where the employer had proved that the prohibition was likely to be known to the injured person. Therefore in view of this settled legal position when the State has led no evidence whatever of any prohibition to the driver or such prohibition being known by those two persons who were injured the State could never claim exoneration in view of the aforesaid settled legal position. In the instant case also there is no evidence to show that the prohibition which the master had imposed on the servant i. e. the driver was known to or likely to be known by the deceased and other passengers who were carried in that truck for hire or reward. In the instant case also there is no evidence to show that the prohibition which the master had imposed on the servant i. e. the driver was known to or likely to be known by the deceased and other passengers who were carried in that truck for hire or reward. In that view of the matter opponent No. 2 owner would be vicariously liable for the compensation payable arising out of an act negligence on the part of the driver: appeal partly allowed. .