JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - These eight Miscellaneous Appeal arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in eight claim petitions tried analogously. Common questions of fact and law arise in all these Miscellaneous appeals and so they were heard analogously. This common judgment will govern all of them. 2. The case of the claimants relevant for disposal of the miscellaneous appeal are stated in a nutshell. The claimants and some others belonging to two families were returning to their village Malihata in a bullock cart after witnessing Sivaratri Mela at village Deosul in the evening of 21-2-74 on Amarda-Baripda road. At about 7.30 P.M. near village Sasa, they noticed the head lights of a motor vehicle coming from behind. The occupants of the bullock cart asked the cartman to get down and stop it so as to control the bullocks till the passing of the motor vehicle. The cartman did so. The motor vehicle came with a great speed without blowing horn and dashed against the bullock cart from the rear. As a result of the impact the bullock cart with its occupants was pushed to a great distance resulting in its complete damage, instantaneous death of five occupants and severe injury, such as, fractures and disfigurements of others. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. ORM 1063 of which the registered owner was respondent Padmalochan. The motor vehicle had been given on hire to respondents Neelratan and Jyotiprakash and at the time of accident it was being driven by Laxmidhar Bindhani, driver of respondent Neelratan and Jyotiprakash who were in possession and management of the motor vehicle and were plying the same on their route. The appellant insurance company had insured the motor vehicle against third party risk. The claimants claimed different amounts of compensation. 3. Respondent Padmalochan in his written statement admitted that the motor vehicle belonged to him and he was its registered owner. He had entered into a contract for management of the motor vehicle with a registered firm named and styled as 'Nananda Bhauja' of Which respondents Neelratan and Jyotiprakash were partners. The route permit was obtained by the partnership firm N.P. Shaw & Sons which was dissolved in the year 1970 and the route was allotted to respondent Jyotiprakash. He had entered into a contract for management of the motor vehicle with a registered firm named and styled as 'Nananda Bhauja' of Which respondents Neelratan and Jyotiprakash were partners. The route permit was obtained by the partnership firm N.P. Shaw & Sons which was dissolved in the year 1970 and the route was allotted to respondent Jyotiprakash. The motor vehicle was given to respondent Jyotiprakash on hire by the registered firm "Nananda Bhauja". Gopinath Sahu was the driver of the motor vehicle engaged by the registered firm and Laxmidhar Bindhani was not its employee. Laxmidhar Bindhani got into the motor vehicle at Deosul as a passenger. He was serving under respondent Jyotiprakash and was on leave since 22-1-74 on the ground of illness. Finding driver Gopinath Sahu absent in the driver's seat, Laxmidhar Bindhani unauthorisedly and without any authority from driver Gopinath Sahu drove the motor vehicle and caused the accident within a short distance. At the place of the accident the motor vehicle was not running at a high speed, but when the driver blew the horn toward a cyclist, who abruptly crossed the road from left to right, the bullocks of the illfated cart got frightened and dragged the cart to the middle of the road in front of the bus and dashed against it. It happened so quickly that although the driver stopped the motor vehicle immediately, he could not avoid the accident. So the accident was not on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle. 4. Respondents Neelratan and Jyotiprakash filed separate written statements and took identical defence with the addition that respondent Jyotiprakash denied that Laxmidhar Bindhani was employed by him. 5. The insurance company filed a separate written statement and took the defence that the driver who caused the accident was not the employee of insured Padmalochan nor was he driving the motor vehicle for his business. He was a passenger of the motor vehicle and drove the same without any authority or consent of the owner or any body else. Therefore, the insurance company is not responsible for any tortious act committed by Laxmidhar Bindhani. 6. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle by Laxmidhar Bindhani. Driver Gopinath Sahu permitted Laxmidhar Bindhani to drive the motor vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company is not responsible for any tortious act committed by Laxmidhar Bindhani. 6. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle by Laxmidhar Bindhani. Driver Gopinath Sahu permitted Laxmidhar Bindhani to drive the motor vehicle. Respondent Padmalochan is vicariously liable for the accident and is bound to pay compensation to the claimants. The insurance company is liable to indemnify to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. The other respondents were not liable to pay compensation. The Claims Tribunal further assessed the compensation in respect of each case and gave the award against respondents Padmalochan and the appellant insurance company. The claim cases were dismissed against respondents Neelratan and Jyotiprakash. 7. Mr. S.S. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that Laxmidhar Bindhani was not employed as the driver of the motor vehicle by the registered owner Neelratan and Jyotiprakash. He was a passenger and taking advantage of the temporary absence of driver Gopinath Sahu, he drove the motor vehicle and caused the accident. In these circumstances, there is no vicarious liability of insured respondent Padmalochan and so the appellant insurance company is not liable to indemnify to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. 8. The facts admitted, proved and not controverted are as follows: Respondent Padmalochan is the registered owner of the motor vehicle. He had insured the motor vehicle with the appellant insurance company. He had entered into a contract with a registered firm named and styled as 'Nananda Bhauja' of which respondent Neelratan and Jyotiprakash were partners for management and plying of the motor vehicle. The registered firm 'Nananda Bhauja' gave the motor vehicle on hire to respondent Jyotiprakash who was plying the same on an approved route which he had obtained in his favour. On 21-2-74 the motor vehicle was plying on Amarda-Baripada road with Gopinath Sahu as its driver. At Deosul stoppage Laxmidhar Bindhani entered into the motor vehicle and drove it. Driver Gopinath Sahu did not raise any objection and allowed Laxmidhar Bindhani to drive. The accident was caused near village Sasa due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle by Laxmidhar Bindhani causing instantaneous death of 5 persons and severe injury to the rest of the occupants of the illfated bullock cart which was completely damaged. Driver Gopinath Sahu did not raise any objection and allowed Laxmidhar Bindhani to drive. The accident was caused near village Sasa due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle by Laxmidhar Bindhani causing instantaneous death of 5 persons and severe injury to the rest of the occupants of the illfated bullock cart which was completely damaged. Respondent Padmalochan who was held vicariously liable to pay damages assessed by the Tribunal has accepted the claim and has not preferred appeals to this Court. So far as he is concerned, the Tribunal's order has become absolute. Respondent Jyotiprakash and Neelratan were exonerated and were held not liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the claim cases were dismissed as against them. 9. The owner of the motor vehicle respondent Padmalochan was the insured. The Tribunal held him vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimants. He has accepted the claim by nor preferring appeals to this Court. Since the order has become absolute as against the insured, the insurer namely, the appellant is bound to cover the contractual liability to extent of Rs. 50,000/- according to Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Nevertheless, when a question has been raised that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the insurance company in not liable to indemnify, it is necessary to examine the point with reference to the settled position of law. 10. P.W. 4 was a passenger in the motor vehicle on the date of the accident and was an eye-witness. According to his evidence, Laxmidhar Bindhani who was the regular driver of the motor vehicle was driving the same when the accident occurred. To his knowledge Laxmidhar Bindhani was working as a driver under respondent Neelratan for about 5 to 10 years. He had seen him driving the same motor vehicle ten days before the date of accident. From the aforesaid evidence of an independent witness, it is pretty clear that Laxmidhar Bindhani was neither a stranger nor an imposter, but was one of the regular drivers to drive motor vehicles on the route either on behalf of respondent Neelratan or respondent Jyotiprakash, either of whom was managing and plying the motor vehicle. From the aforesaid evidence of an independent witness, it is pretty clear that Laxmidhar Bindhani was neither a stranger nor an imposter, but was one of the regular drivers to drive motor vehicles on the route either on behalf of respondent Neelratan or respondent Jyotiprakash, either of whom was managing and plying the motor vehicle. Respondent Padmalochan having made a contract with the registered firm "Nananda Bhauja" of which respondent Neelratan and Jyotiprakash were partners must be deemed to have implied consent for the arrangement that the motor vehicle be run on an approved route belonging either to respondent Neelratan or respondent Jyotiprakash, which in this case was the Amarda-Baripada route, admittedly belonging to respondent Jyotiprakash. The above arrangement was for the business, financial benefit and gain of respondent Padmalochan. The above fact finds support from the evidence of OPW 1, an employee of respondent Neelratan, who stated that on the date of accident respondent Jyotiprakash had brought the motor vehicle from respondent Padmalochan to ply on his route. He was borrowing the passenger bus to meet contingency when required. Conclusion is therefore inescapable and there is little doubt the Laxmidhar Bindhani was driving the motor vehicle in course of employment and for the business of its owner respondent Padmalochan. 11. The law on the subject has been laid down in Sitaram Motilal Kalal Vs. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt. It was held: The law is 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, for the master's liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful act authorised by the master or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master. The driver of a car taking the car on the master's business makes him vicariously liable if he commits an accident. But 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 him-self the master is not liable. There is a presumption that a vehicle is driven on the master's business and by his authorised agent or servant but the presumption can be met. There is a presumption that a vehicle is driven on the master's business and by his authorised agent or servant but the presumption can be met. It was negatived in this case, because the vehicle was proved to be driven by an authorised person and on his own business. The de factor driver was not the driver of the agent of the owner but one who had obtained the car for his own business not even from the master but from a servant of the master. Prima facie, the owner would not be liable in such circumstances. In this connection it would also be relevant to quote the opinion of Lord Denning From (1953)2 All. ER 753Or nrod and Anr. v. Crossville Motor Service Ltd. It is well settled that a master is vicariously liable for the act of his servant acting in course of his employment. The scope of employment of a servant need not of course be viewed narrowly, but the essential element that the wrong must be committed by the servant during the course of employment should always be present. It is not essential always that the act of the servant or agent should be for the master's benefit. The above principle was followed in 1975 (1) CWR 432 Prabhudayal Agarwalla and another v. Smt. Saraswati Bai and Ors. There are also other decisions on the subject. In Carberry v. Davies and Anr. reported in 1968 ACJ 414 it was observed that if the vehicle was being used wholly or partly on the owner's business or for the owner's purposes, the owner is liable for any negligence on the part of the driver. The owner escapes liability only if he lends the vehicle or hires it to a third person for use for a purpose in which the owner has no interest or concern also see AIR 1973 Mys 162, A. Harsha V. Rai v. Dr. K.V. Karana and Ors. and Kesava Murthy Vs. V. Amurthammal and Others, . 12. In view of the settled position of law and the facts of this case, the only conclusion which can be deprived is that respondent Padmalochan, the registered owner of the motor vehicle which caused the accident and was the insured, was vicariously liable as rightly found by the Tribunal. and Kesava Murthy Vs. V. Amurthammal and Others, . 12. In view of the settled position of law and the facts of this case, the only conclusion which can be deprived is that respondent Padmalochan, the registered owner of the motor vehicle which caused the accident and was the insured, was vicariously liable as rightly found by the Tribunal. If the vicarious liability of the insured is established, the insurance company is liable to indemnify to the extent of its limited liability of Rs. 50,000/- according to Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. If such a view is not taken on the basis of law and facts, then as rightly observed in Narcinva V. Kamat and Another Vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and Others. the following undesirable and unethical result will follow: If in every such situation where the person driving the vehicle is not shown to be the insurer himself or someone in his employment, the contract of insurance would afford no protection and the insurance company having collected the premium would wriggle out of a loophole. 13. In the ultimate analysis, I hold in agreement with the Tribunal that the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify to the extent of its legal liability in all the claim cases. So the appeals have no merit which are accordingly dismissed with costs Advocate's fee in each case in asses sed at Rs. 32/-.