JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned A.G.P. for appellant, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. The parties shall be referred in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the impugned award dated 29th September, 1992. 3. The respondent nos.1 to 3/ applicants filed a claim for compensation of a sum of Rs.l,00,000/- on account of death of deceased Madhukar Pundlik Mahalley caused on account of a motor accident which occurred on 3rd December, 1989 at around 3.30 p.m. It is the case of the said applicants that on the said date the said deceased had gone to the bus-stand at Ner and he found a truck tanker bearing No.MHV-1388 was stationary on the road, the non-applicant no.2 was the driver of the said truck tanker. As the said truck was not starting, the deceased along with some other persons pushed the tanker and immediately the tanker started but the non-applicant no.2 could not stop the tanker which resulted in the deceased coming beneath the tanker thereby causing his death. It is further their contention that the said accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the non-applicant no.2 and consequently, filed said petition for the compensation against the non-applicant no.2 as well as the non-applicant no.1 who are admittedly the owners of the said tanker. It is further their contention that the said deceased was earning Rs.420/- per month and in view of his death, the applicants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1 ,66,400/- on account of the dependency besides a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of shock and loss of consortium however, they have restricted their claim to a sum of Rs.l,00,000/-. 4. The claim of the applicants was resisted by the non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 by filing their written statements which are at Exhs.20 and 28. It is the contention of the of the non-applicant no. 1 that they do not dispute that they are the owners of the said vehicle nor that the non-applicant no.2 was an employee of the non-applicant no. 1. They also did not dispute that the accident occurred which resulted in the death of the deceased however, they disputed the contention of the applicants to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the non-applicant. 1. They also did not dispute that the accident occurred which resulted in the death of the deceased however, they disputed the contention of the applicants to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the non-applicant. It is further their contention that although non-applicant no.2 was in service, the said non-applicant was incharge of the road roller and he was on duty and it was his duty to drive the road roller and no other vehicle. It is further their driver of the said ill-fated tanker. and that the non-applicant no.2 had no authority to drive the .said vehicle and that on the eventful date the non-applicant no.2 without the permission of the higher authorities took the tanker into his custody and caused the accident with the said vehicle. The act of driving of said vehicle by non-applicant no.2 was unauthorized and as such the non-applicant no.1 is not vicariously liable for the act of the non-applicant no.2. 5. In the written statement filed by non-applicant no.2 he admitted that he took the tanker from Singandoh to Ner and that the deceased came beneath the tanker at the relevant time and place and died. He further contended that he was in charge of the road roller but as an experienced driver was also assigned a job to drive other vehicles by the higher authority as and when required. It is further his contention that as the wife of the Watchman suddenly fell ill, at the request of the Watchman he took her to the hospital to give her medical aid. At the relevant place, he had not requested the deceased to push the tanker but he on his own came near the tanker and fell which resulted in his death on account of his own negligence. Consequently, the said non-applicants prayed that the Claim petition deserves to be rejected. 6. The Motor Accident claim Tribunal after framing the issues and recording the evidence by award dated 29th September, 1992 partly decreed the claim of the applicants and directed the non-applicants to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.86,000/- inclusive of the no-fault liability compensation to the applicants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application until the actual payment. Being aggrieved by the said award, the non-applicant no.1 has preferred the present appeal. Being aggrieved by the said award, the non-applicant no.1 has preferred the present appeal. 7. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no justification in directing the non-applicant no. 1 to pay compensation to the applicants. It is her contention that the non-applicant no.2 was not authorized to drive the said vehicle and as such the act on the part of the non-applicant no.2 was unlawful and as such the non-applicant no. 1 is not liable to pay the said compensation to the applicants. It is further her contention that the non-applicant no. 1 cannot be held to be vicariously liable to pay the amount as according to the learned A.G.P., the act on the part of the non-applicant no.2 was unauthorized and as such no liability can be fastened on them. The learned A.G.P. further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the non-applicant no.2 was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently and as such the non-applicant no. 1 is not liable to pay the said amount. It is further her submission that the appeal deserves to be allowed and award of the Tribunal directing the non-applicant no. 1 to pay the amount deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants supported the award and submitted that there was ample evidence on record to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the non-applicant no.2. It is further his submission that there is a presumption that once the ownership of the said tanker has been admitted by the non-applicant no.2, he is vicariously liable to the acts of the driver. It is further his submission that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent no.2 was not authorized to drive the said vehicle. He has further submitted that in fact the witnesses of the non-applicant no. 1 had admitted that in case of emergency situation, the said tanker could have been taken to provide medical aid to persons who are in need of such aid. He further submitted that the non-applicant no.2 in fact allowed to drive the vehicles as and when the need arises and as such it cannot be said that the act on the part of the non-applicant no.2 was unauthorized. He further submitted that the non-applicant no.2 in fact allowed to drive the vehicles as and when the need arises and as such it cannot be said that the act on the part of the non-applicant no.2 was unauthorized. The learned counsel further submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant no.2 on account of his failure to stop the said vehicle after the same has started. He accordingly submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claim's Tribunal and that the appeal has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the non-applicant no.2 has submitted that the non-applicant was authorized to drive the said vehicle though at the time of specific eventualities and as such it cannot be said that his act to drive the ill-fated tanker was unauthorized. He has further submitted that the non-applicant no.2 is a poor person and is not in position to pay any amount of compensation. 10. Having heard the learned A.G.P. and the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the records the following points arise for determination in the present appeal. 1. Whether the non-applicant no.1/ appellant are vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the applicants/ respondent nos.1 to 3 on account of the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased ? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim's Tribunal is exorbitant? 11. Dealing with the said points for determination, in the cross-examination of Vishwanath Joshi on behalf of the applicant no.1 he has admitted that in case of emergency when a person had need of medical help a vehicle of the department is used for taking such a person to the hospital. In such cases the permission can be granted ex-post-facto. He has further stated that the enquiry revealed that the Watchman had asked the non-applicant no.2 to take the vehicle to provide medical aid to his wife. The said submissions of the non-applicant no.1 discloses that in case of emergency situation the truck/tanker could have been used which belong to the department to take the persons who required medical attention. In the present case it is not in dispute that the tanker was being used to take the wife of the Watchman for medical aid to the hospital at Ner. In the present case it is not in dispute that the tanker was being used to take the wife of the Watchman for medical aid to the hospital at Ner. This discloses that the taking vehicle to Ner by the non-applicant no.2 at the relevant time cannot be said to be unauthorized. 12. As far as the contention that the non-applicant no.2 was not authorized to drive the said vehicle, I find that the said non-applicant has stated in his deposition that he was working as an Operator of the road roller at Singandoh project. He has further stated that he also worked as a driver of truck as per the oral order of the Project Officer. If any regular driver was on leave, he was asked to drive the vehicle by the superiors. He has further stated that the driver of the truck bearing No.1388 was on leave on the relevant date and that the wife of Watchman was ill and as such he took her to the hospital in the said truck to Ner. He has further stated that he was entitled to take away the said vehicle for private purposes, provided he paid certain amount to the office. He has further deposed that the starter of the tanker was not in order and hence he collected some persons and asked them to push the said tanker which he had parked near the bus-stand. He further deposed that he had not called the deceased. The next witness examined by the non-applicant no. 1 is the driver Shri. Vasant Wag hade. He deposed that he had never authorized the non-applicant no.2 to drive the tanker nor he was authorized by any other person to drive the said tanker. He further deposed that he left the premises at around 5.30 p.m. on 21/2/1989 and he had kept the tanker at the site and asked the Watchman to keep watch on the said tanker as he had taken leave on account of the illness of his mother. He further deposed that on the date when he parked the said vehicle, he let the wires of the battery loose to take necessary precautions. In the cross-examination, he admitted that even if the wires of the battery of the tanker are not operating, the tanker can be started by giving a push. 13. He further deposed that on the date when he parked the said vehicle, he let the wires of the battery loose to take necessary precautions. In the cross-examination, he admitted that even if the wires of the battery of the tanker are not operating, the tanker can be started by giving a push. 13. Though the evidence on record may disclose that there was no order to the non-appellant no.2 authorizing him to drive the said tanker on the said date nevertheless, the evidence demonstrates that in specific eventualities, the non-applicant no.2 was allowed to drive the said vehicle as per the oral instructions of the officers. The witness of the non-applicant - Shri. Joshi in his cross-examination also admitted that in the enquiry which was held there was no evidence to show that the non-applicant no.2 had forcefully taken the vehicle from the site. Apart from the fact that the evidence of the non-applicant no. 1 further disclosed that though it was contended by the said non-applicant that taking the vehicle unauthorizedly was a serious mater nevertheless, no punishment was inflicted on the non-appellant no.2 on account of such acts. Considering that at the relevant time even the Technical Assistant was not available at site, I find that, in the overall consideration of the mater, there was implicit approvals for the non-applicant no.2 to drive the said vehicle in emergency situation. The evidence further discloses that at the instance of the said Watchman who was also an employee of non-appellant no.1, the non-applicant no.2 was forced to drive the said vehicle in view of the fact that the wife of the said Watchman was ill. In the judgment reported in AIR 1979 Karnataka 134 (K. Jayaraja Ballal Vs. Alfred Quadres and another) relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court it has been held that the presumption is that the driver of motor vehicle is driving the vehicle on his own master's business as his authorized agent. The burden is on the owner to rebut the presumption. If a person drives a vehicle with the consent of the owner or his Manager, the owner will became vicariously liable for the accident caused by the driver. The burden is on the owner to rebut the presumption. If a person drives a vehicle with the consent of the owner or his Manager, the owner will became vicariously liable for the accident caused by the driver. It is further been held that when the owner of the vehicle has exclusive charge of the vehicle, and the driver allows another person to drive the said vehicle which resulted in an accident, the owner will became liable for the damages for the injury caused. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1996(2) Bom.C.R. 153 (State or Maharashtra and others Vs. Kanchanmala Vijaysingh and others) has held at para 9 as under - "The question of payment of compensation for motor accidents has assumed great importance during the last few decades. The road accidents have touched a new height in India as well as in other parts of the world. Traditionally, before the Court directed payment of tort compensation, the claimant had to establish the fault of the persons causing injury or damage. But of late, it shall appear from different judicial pronouncement that the fault is being read as because of someone's negligence or carelessness. Same is the approach and attitude of the Courts while judging the vicarious liability of the employer for negligence of the employee. Negligence is the commission to do something which a reasonable man expected to do or a prudent man expected to do. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the person causing injury to the other was negligent or not has to be examined on the material produced before the Court. It is the rule that an employer, though guilty of no fault himself, is liable for the damage done by the fault or negligence of his servant acting in the course of his employment. In some case, it can be found that an employee was doing an authorized act in an unauthorized but not a prohibited way. The employer shall be liable for such act. because such employee was acting within a scope of his employment and in so acting did something negligent or wrongful. A master is liable even for acts which he has not authorized provided they are so connected with acts which he has been so authorized. The employer shall be liable for such act. because such employee was acting within a scope of his employment and in so acting did something negligent or wrongful. A master is liable even for acts which he has not authorized provided they are so connected with acts which he has been so authorized. On the other hand, if the act of the servant is not even remotely connected within the scope of employment and is an independent act, the Master shall not be responsible because the servant is not acting in the course of his employment but has gone outside. In Salmands Law of Tort (28th Edn.) at page 458 it has been said; "On the other hand it has been held that a servant who is authorized to drive a motor vehicle and who permits an unauthorized person to drive it in his place, may yet be acting within the scope of his employment. The act of permitting another to drive may a mode, albeit and improper one, of doing the authorized work, the master may even be responsible if a servant impliedly, and not expressly, permits an unauthorized person to drive the vehicle, as where he leaves it unattained in such a manner that it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party will attempt to drive it, at least if the driver retains notional control of the vehicle." 14. In view of the said judgment and from the material on record it is oblivious that the act committed by the non-applicant no.2 was within the course of the employment and as such the non-applicant no.1 is liable to pay the compensation for the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the non-applicant no.2. As such, I find that no interference is called for in the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the non-applicant no. 1 is vicariously liable to pay for the acts committed by the non-applicant no.2. The said point for determination is answered accordingly. 15. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I find that he Tribunal has awarded the compensation in a just and proper manner. 1 is vicariously liable to pay for the acts committed by the non-applicant no.2. The said point for determination is answered accordingly. 15. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I find that he Tribunal has awarded the compensation in a just and proper manner. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion considering the uncertainties of human life and looking to the facts of the case that the amount of annual dependency was a sum of Rs.3,000/ -. Considering that the deceased was 34 years the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicants were entitled for a sum of Rs.81,000/- on account of dependency and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards consortium, love and affection. I find that there is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation considering the income of the deceased and the age at the time of his death. The amount as awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and no interference is called for on that count. 16. In view of the above, there is no merits in the above appeal and as such the above appeal stands dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.