JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by Rama who was awarded Rs. 20,000/- by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur vide judgment dated 31.8.1994 for the reasons that he suffered injuries and his face was disfigured in an accident which took place on 21.5.1986. In all 30 claim petitions were filed and the claimant's petition was one of them. 2. The facts are that Homa was married in village Kujela and the persons who had gone to attend the marriage were returning. Arjun was the driver of Truck No. RJY-4841 and was going towards Aantari. The truck was stopped by him and the persons who were returning after marriage including to the appellant boarded the truck on payment of Re. 1/- each. The truck after some time fell in a ditch from the ghati. The result was that 18 persons died and 12 were injured. The truck was owned by Karnal Singh and Jogendra Singh and was engaged by P.W.D. for the purpose of relief work. The truck was not insured. It is stated that the appellant suffered some injuries for which he claimed Rs. 3,05,000/-. Learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with 12% per annum interest only against Karnal Singh. Appellant filed an appeal. During the pendency of appeal Karnal Singh expired. The appellant did not bring his legal representatives on record and perused the appeal only against State of Rajasthan. 3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents first contended that the appeal abated because legal representatives of Karnal Singh have not been brought on record. But in view of the order dated 2.9.1998, which cannot be reviewed now, the appeal has to proceed against State of Rajasthan Therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents does not hold water. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as admitted by the parties the truck was engaged by P.W.D. for drought relief work and when the truck was returning from such a work the driver of the truck took Re. 1/- from each of the passengers who boarded on the truck. He, therefore, submitted that since the truck was on contract with the State of Rajasthan, State of Rajasthan will be responsible victoriously. 6. 1/- from each of the passengers who boarded on the truck. He, therefore, submitted that since the truck was on contract with the State of Rajasthan, State of Rajasthan will be responsible victoriously. 6. On the other hand, the case of the respondent State was that the truck was engaged only for drought relief work during day time and was not engaged for all the 24 hours. He submitted that the truck was engaged between 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. as the drought relief work was being carried only upto 5.00 P.M. While the accident took place when the truck was going back after performing drought relief work. Hence the State cannot be held liable. It was also contended that the State of Rajasthan had never instructed the driver or the truck owner that truck may be used for carrying passengers eto after taking fare from them. As such the truck driver was not authorised to carry passengers on behalf of respondent State of Rajasthan. 7. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the truck was of course engaged in the drought relief work as the same was taken on rent by the State of Rajasthan but the accident did not take place during the period when drought relief work was being carried nor it was related to it. The persons who died and the persons who suffered injuries were not the labourers performing the drought relief work. Therefore, the State of Rajasthan cannot be held responsible. This has been challenged by learned counsel on the ground that since the State has engaged the truck, it was liable vicariously for the action of driver. 8. So far as vicarious liability of the State is concerned, there is a presumption that a vehicle is driven on the master's business and by its authorised agents or servants. It was so held in AIR 1966 SC page 1697, Sita Ram Moti Lal Kala v. Santanuprasad Jaishanker Bhatt . In view of the fact that driver was an employee of the truck owner, there will be a presumption in that driver who carried passengers in the truck was doing business on behalf of his master. Admittedly State is not the master of the truck. Therefore, the State cannot be held liable. 9. Then it was submitted that the State is vicariously liable because it had engaged the truck. Admittedly State is not the master of the truck. Therefore, the State cannot be held liable. 9. Then it was submitted that the State is vicariously liable because it had engaged the truck. But this argument also does not help the appellant as is the truck was engaged between 10 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. and it is an admitted fact that the truck was returning after completion of the work and the driver unauthorisedly made passengers sit in the truck. The State cannot be held liable vicariously. Vicarious liability has two chief clauses viz. master's responsibility for the acts of his servants done in the course of their employment and secondly the representatives of dead who are liable for the deeds done in the flash by those whom they represent. The authority for a servant to act in the course of employment is always implied. When the driver was not the servant of the State of Rajasthan, the State of Rajasthan cannot be held responsible for the act of the driver of vehicle. 10. Consequently, the appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******