JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act) is directed against the award dated 16-9-1985 made by the IInd additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Indore (for short the Tribunal) in Claim case No. 68 of 1982. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that at about 5 A. M. on 25-1-1982 the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MPZ 8707 belonging to the State of M. P. while coming to Indore from mhow was involved in an accident resulting in the death of Gangaram who. was then an occupant of the vehicle. ( 3. ) AT the time of the accident the vehicle was being driven by the respondent No. 8 Ramsingh an employee of the State of M. P. The other respondents are the L. Rs. of deceased Gangaram. ( 4. ) THE aforesaid respondents Nos. 1 to 7 filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. According to the claim petition the deceased was working in the Malwa Mills, Indore and was earning Rs. 625/-per month. It was stated in the application that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Ramsingh who was driving the vehicle in the course of his employment with the State of M. P. ( 5. ) THE driver Ramsingh put in appearance after service but ultimately was proceeded ex parte. ( 6. ) THE claim petition was resisted by the appellants on the averments that the driver was driving the vehicle for his own purpose, without the permission of the concerned authorities. ( 7. ) THE respondent Ramsingh, the driver of the accident vehicle, though still in the employment of the State of M. P. was not examined at the trial. On the material on record at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal found that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by Ramsingh in the course of his employment and made an award in the sum of Rs. 43,200/ -. ( 8. ) THE point for determination is whether the appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 9. ) THE appellants main contention is that the vehicle was not being driven in the course of employment. ( 10. ) THE theory of vicarious liability is based on public policy. 43,200/ -. ( 8. ) THE point for determination is whether the appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 9. ) THE appellants main contention is that the vehicle was not being driven in the course of employment. ( 10. ) THE theory of vicarious liability is based on public policy. The ordinary presumption is that the driver of the vehicle is driving it with the consent of the owner of the vehicle and in connection with his (owners) business and in case of negligent driving resulting in accident, the owner of the vehicle is, therefore, held vicariously liable along with the driver for any claim for compensation. In this connection the decision in sahanlals case ( 1972 ACJ 324 ) may usefully be perused. The opinion of the Full Bench reported in Narayanlal Padiyars case ( 1979 MPLJ 405 = 1979 JLJ 461 ) makes an illuminating reading on vicarious liability of the master for the tort committed by the servant. Therein it has been pointed out that the principle of vicarious liability is one of public policy aiming at socially convenient and rough justice. The concept of trespass or the concept of agency in determining the masters liability for the acts of his servants is not relevant. The only relevant consideration are whether the servant is liable and whether the act is done by the servant in the scope or course of his employment. The proposition stated by Lord Justice Denning and approved by the S. C. in Pushpabais case ( AIR 1977 SC 1735 ) is in these words : "if the servant has been forbidden, or is unauthorised, to give anyone a lift, then no doubt the passenger is a traspasser on the lorry so far as the owners are concerned, but that is not of itself an answer to the claim. In my opinion when the owner of a lorry sends his servant on a journey with it, thereby putting the servant in a position, not only to drive it, but also to give people a lift in it, then he is answerable for the manner in which the servant conducts himself on the journey, not only in the driving of it, but also in giving lifts in it, provided, of course, that in so doing the servant is acting in the course of employment. " In the aforesaid opinion of the Full Bench, poining out that prohibition on giving lifts may not in each and every case be construed as limiting the scope of the employment of the servant as distinguished from limiting the manner in which the servant is required to execute, the work which he is employed to do, the D. B. decision in Bhaiyalals case ( 1960 MPLJ 125 = AIR 1960 MP 147 ) was overruled. Where the gratuitous passenger is there with the consent, knowledge or connivance of the driver, the duty independent of contract is mere to drive me vehicle with care and caution. ( 11. ) AS already pointed out the driver of the vehicle has not been examined though he is still in the employment of the State of M. P. From the evidence of Suresh tiwari N. A. W. 1 it is clear that the driver was required to carry a person to the offices of various local newspapers for distributing photographs and news relating to the visit of the Chief Minister. The person who was to be so carried by the driver has not been examined. The log-book of the vehicle has also not been produced. Suresh Tiwari has admitted in his cross-examination that he made no inquiries from that person as to whether or not he had required the driver to take the vehicle to the journalist Mishra at mhow. The version of Mangilal A. W. 3 is that the respondent Ramsingh was driving the vehicle at great speed and when asked to drive it at slow speed had stated that he had to reach Indore on Govt, duty and has also to go to Dhar. Even if prior to this fateful journey Ramsingh by this vehicle had been to some place to see his ailing mother it is inconsequential. The appellants have led no credible evidence to prove the defence. On a careful consideration of the material on record I find that it cannot be held that at the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by the driver in connection with the illness of his mother. ( 12. ) ON a careful consideration of the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the View that the learned Tribunal committed no error in making the award it did. ( 13. ( 12. ) ON a careful consideration of the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the View that the learned Tribunal committed no error in making the award it did. ( 13. ) IN the result the appeal fails and dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 200/- only. Appeal dismissed.