Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 984 (HP)

State Of H. P. v. Fundi Devi

2013-11-27

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, facts of FAO (MVA) No. 100 of 2008 have been taken into consideration. 2. Bread earner of claimants in FAO No. 100/2008 died in an accident of vehicle No. HP-08-755, which took place on 21.5.2004 at about 6.00 P.M. at Bathal in Tehsil Chopal. The vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 Ishwar Singh and insured with respondent No.3 New India Assurance Company Limited. The deceased was labourer in the employment of appellant-State (hereinafter referred to as "appellant" for convenience sake). The work on Fedaz Dhawas road was going on and the labourers including deceased were deputed to work there. The labourers were taken to the spot in the morning in ill-fated truck owned by respondent No.2. It was hired by the appellant. The labourers engaged by the appellant including deceased was deputed for the purpose of metalling and levelling of the road. According to the averments contained in the claim petition, the workmen were on their way back in the vehicle in question hired by the appellant. When the vehicle reached near Bathal, it met with an accident as the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It fell down from the road. Twenty nine persons died on the spot. Driver and cleaner of the vehicle also died on the spot. Appellant used to bring the labourers to the place of work site in the morning with a view to complete the work within one week, otherwise as per practice the labourers of Gumma section used to work only within Gumma area and for Dhawas area there was separate labour. However, during the month of May, 2004, labourers including deceased were engaged specially to complete the metalling work within the stipulated period. Special arrangement was made by appellant with respondent No.2 to bring the labourers from Gumma to the site of work in the morning and in the evening they used to drop all the labourers at their respective native villages on road side. 3. Appellant filed reply to the claim petition. Special arrangement was made by appellant with respondent No.2 to bring the labourers from Gumma to the site of work in the morning and in the evening they used to drop all the labourers at their respective native villages on road side. 3. Appellant filed reply to the claim petition. According to the preliminary objections taken by the appellant, the vehicle in question neither belonged to it nor was the same hired by it for carrying labourers to and fro journey from the site of work. All the labourers boarded the ill-fated vehicle, which met with an accident, voluntarily in order to avoid payment of fare. According to appellant, truck was not hired by it to transport the labourers. The truck was neither owned nor was the driver or conductor permitted to carry the labourers in the truck. 4. According to the reply filed by owner of the illfated truck, i.e. respondent No.2, the truck was hired by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Chopal from him. It is further stated in the reply that from 17.5.2000 till the time of accident, driver had been driving the vehicle as per instructions of the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Chopal. The vehicle was hired for transportation of stone, grit etc. for metalling the Nerwa-Fedaz road. It is further stated that the owner had never authorised the HPPWD to carry labourers in the truck in question. 5. The anchor-sheet of the reply filed by respondent No.3 is that labourers were travelling gratuitously and thus the insurance company was not liable. 6. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. "Whether the driver of truck No.HP-08-0755 was driving the truck rashly and negligently and as such caused the death of Sh. Budhi Singh? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the truck was under the control and possession of respondent No.1 and the driver was driving the truck per instruction of the respondent No.2 at the time of accident? OPR2 4. Whether the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR. 5. Whether the deceased was travelling in the truck No.HP-08- 0755 as an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger alongwith others in violation of the condition of the insurance policy? OPR. 6. Whether the truck was being plied without route permit and fitness certificate? OPR2 4. Whether the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR. 5. Whether the deceased was travelling in the truck No.HP-08- 0755 as an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger alongwith others in violation of the condition of the insurance policy? OPR. 6. Whether the truck was being plied without route permit and fitness certificate? OPR 7. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 8. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the petition as remedy of the petitioners is available under the Workmen Compensation Act?" OPR. 7. Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal made awards in all the claim petitions on 5.11.2007. Hence, the present appeals. 8. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General has vehemently argued that the labourers were travelling as gratuitous passengers. He has also argued that vehicle was neither owned nor controlled by the HPPWD nor there was any implied or oral consent to carry the labourers from any of the officers/officials of appellant either to owner or its driver. He has further contended that the truck was hired to carry grit and stone alone. 9. Mr. Debender Ghosh, Mr. Dharam Singh Chauhan and Mr. Suneet Goel have supported the award dated 5.11.2007. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 11. PW-1 Suri Devi has testified that her husband was working with the HPPWD, Sub Division, Nerwa. On 21.5.2004, he was returning back from his place of work in truck No. HP-08-0755. Ishwar Singh was owner of the truck. When the truck reached near Bathal, it fell down. The truck was hired by HPPWD to carry labourers to the work site and back. Her husband died in the accident on the spot. 12. PW-2 Kanta Devi has also deposed that her husband was working with HPPWD, Sub Division, Nerwa. On 21.5.2004, he was returning back from his place of work in truck No. HP-08-0755. Truck met with an accident near Bathal. Truck was hired by HPPWD to carry labourers to the work site and back. Her husband died in the accident. 13. PW-3 Suresh has testified that his father was working with the HPPWD, Sub Division, Nerwa. On 21.5.2004, he was returning from his place of work in truck No. HP-08-0755. Truck met with an accident near Bathal. It was owned by Ishwar Singh. Her husband died in the accident. 13. PW-3 Suresh has testified that his father was working with the HPPWD, Sub Division, Nerwa. On 21.5.2004, he was returning from his place of work in truck No. HP-08-0755. Truck met with an accident near Bathal. It was owned by Ishwar Singh. It was hired by HPPWD to carry labourers to the work site and back. His father died in the accident. 14. PW-4 Neetu Devi has deposed that her husband was working with the HPPWD, Sub Division, Nerwa. He was returning from his place of work in truck No. HP-08-0755 on 21.5.2004. It was owned by Ishwar Singh. It met with an accident. Truck was hired by HPPWD to carry labourers to the work site and back. Her husband died in the accident. 15. PW-5 Kewla Devi has also testified that her husband was working with the HPPWD, Sub Division, Nerwa. He was returning from his place of work in truck No. HP-08-0755 on 21.5.2004. Truck met with an accident. It was hired by HPPWD to carry labourers to the work site and back. Her husband died in the accident. 16. PW-6 Janta Devi has also testified that her husband was working with the HPPWD, Sub Division, Nerwa. He was returning back from his place of work in truck No. HP-08-0755 on 21.5.2004. It met with an accident. Her husband died in the accident. 17. PW-7 Kanta Devi, PW-8 Ramla Devi, PW-9 Ramla Devi, PW-10 Balo Devi, PW-12 Kanu Devi, PW-13 Fundi Devi, PW-14 Radha Devi and PW-15 Shanti Devi have deposed the manner in which their husband died while returning from their place of work in truck No. HP- 08-0755 on 21.5.2004. They have also deposed that the truck was hired by the HPPWD to carry labourers to the work site and back. 18. PW-16 Sunder Singh has deposed that his father was working with the HPPWD, Sub Division, Nerwa. He was returning from his place of work in truck No. HP- 08-0755. Truck met with an accident. It was hired by the HPPWD to ferry labourers and to transport material to the work site. 19. PW-17 Parma Nand testified that he was working as Beldar with the HPPWD, Sub Division, Nerwa. He alongwith other labourers were returning in truck No.HP-08-0755 on 21.5.2004 from a place near Banni to his village. Driver was driving the truck at a high speed. 19. PW-17 Parma Nand testified that he was working as Beldar with the HPPWD, Sub Division, Nerwa. He alongwith other labourers were returning in truck No.HP-08-0755 on 21.5.2004 from a place near Banni to his village. Driver was driving the truck at a high speed. On account of this, truck rolled down the road. Twenty nine persons died in the accident and five persons sustained injuries. He also sustained injuries. The HPPWD had engaged a private truck owned by respondent No.2 for ferrying labourers to the work site and place of residence and for carriage of material. The HPPWD officials had instructed them to complete the work as it was time bound with further instruction that during the period the truck would remain with them at their disposal for to and fro journey. He has denied the suggestion that PWD officials had not deputed any truck to ferry the labourers for to and fro journey. He has denied the suggestion that the truck was hired for carriage of materials. He has also denied the suggestion that they boarded the truck to save fare. 20. RW-1 Dhoom Singh has testified that he was working as a labourer with the Public Works Department since 1994. He was employed in Fedaz section. Balbir Thakur was Junior Engineer. For tarring work in Shamta section, labourers of Fedaz section used to be brought in a truck from Gumma to Banni. On 21.5.2004, they were brought in a truck. He did not know, who was the owner of the truck. However, Public Works Department was using this truck for the purpose. Truck met with an accident at Chakwari. Truck was under the control of Junior Engineer and Sub Divisional Officer. The labourers were being carried in the truck under the orders of Junior Engineer. Driver of the truck used to drive the truck under the orders and directions of the Junior Engineer. Labourers were residents of villages situated near Gumma. Banni is 24-25 KMs from Gumma. Bus fare from Gumma to Banni was Rs. 34-35. They were to reach the work place before 9.00 A.M. Bus timing did not suit them. Bus used to reach Gumma at 9.00 A.M, thus, it was not possible for them to reach the place of work at Banni by bus. For this reason, Junior Engineer had instructed them to assemble at Gumma and travel by truck upto the work place. Bus used to reach Gumma at 9.00 A.M, thus, it was not possible for them to reach the place of work at Banni by bus. For this reason, Junior Engineer had instructed them to assemble at Gumma and travel by truck upto the work place. In the evening, same truck used to drop them at Gumma. This arrangement continued from 17.5.2004 upto the day of occurrence. Accident took place in the evening when the truck was being driven from Banni to Gumma. He has denied the suggestion that truck was engaged only to carry grit. He has also denied the suggestion that Junior Engineer or the Assistant Engineer never asked them to travel by truck. He has also denied the suggestion that to save bus fare, they used to travel by truck. 21. RW-2 Madan Singh has also testified that he was working in the HPPWD as Beldar since 1993. The Public Works Department had employed the labourers of Fedaz section for tarring of road at Banni. For carrying the labourers of Fedaz section to Banni, a truck was engaged by the Public Works Department. Labourers were asked to assemble at Gumma. They used to travel in truck to Banni and used to come back to Gumma in the evening. This arrangement was going on from 17.5.2004. Accident took place on 21.5.2004. He was also travelling in the truck. Junior Engineer had instructed them to assemble at Gumma and they were asked to travel by truck from Gumma to Banni and back. They used to go for collecting the grit, loading and unloading the same. He has denied the suggestion that the truck was being used by the Public Works Department for carrying grit only. He has also denied the suggestion that they used to save bus fare. 22. RW-3 Santokh Singh has deposed that truck was ensured with respondent No.3-insurance company. 23. RW-4 Karnal Narayan has deposed that he was working as investigator with insurance company. He has carried out the inspection of vehicle No. HP-08-0755, which met with an accident on 21.5.2004. It has come in the investigation carried out by him that vehicle was hired by the HPPWD and 34 people, engaged as labourers, were travelling in the truck at the time of accident. The labourers were being dropped at Gumma. 24. He has carried out the inspection of vehicle No. HP-08-0755, which met with an accident on 21.5.2004. It has come in the investigation carried out by him that vehicle was hired by the HPPWD and 34 people, engaged as labourers, were travelling in the truck at the time of accident. The labourers were being dropped at Gumma. 24. RW-5 Balbir Singh Thakur has testified that he was working as Junior Engineer in Sub Division, Nerwa of Chopal Division of the Public Works Department. Tarring work of Shaloo-Dhawas road was being undertaken in the year 2004. Truck owned by respondent No.2 was engaged by the Department from 17.5.2004 to 21.5.2004 for carrying stones from Fedaz to Banni. The stones were required for work between RD 9/0 to 10/0. Truck was to be used for carrying stones only. According to him, neither he nor anyone else from their Department gave any oral or written instructions to respondent No.2 or the driver of the truck to carry labourers in the truck. It was the responsibility of the labourers to reach the site of work of their own by any means. The payment to the truck owner was made through hand receipts. In his crossexamination, he has admitted that the truck was being used under his supervision. Volunteered, it was between 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. He has also admitted that the work was time bound. He has admitted that truck was initially hired for six days from 17.5.2004. He has deposed that tarring work was being done under his supervision. Truck used to run under his instructions for carrying stones. He has denied the suggestion that he had instructed the driver of the truck to carry the labourers to Gumma. He has also denied the suggestion that he had instructed the driver to stay at Gumma during night. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the labourers died when they were returning from the site of work. 25. Owner of the truck Ishwar Singh has appeared as RW-6. According to him, truck was hired on 17.5.2004. Truck met with an accident on 21.5.2004. Truck was insured by respondent No.3 insurance company. Driver was possessing valid and effective driving licence. He feigned ignorance that the PWD has hired the truck from union only for carriage of stones and grit. Owner of the truck Ishwar Singh has appeared as RW-6. According to him, truck was hired on 17.5.2004. Truck met with an accident on 21.5.2004. Truck was insured by respondent No.3 insurance company. Driver was possessing valid and effective driving licence. He feigned ignorance that the PWD has hired the truck from union only for carriage of stones and grit. He volunteered that the labourers were also used to be carried as told to him by Driver. 26. What emerges from the evidence discussed hereinabove is that the truck in fact was hired by the HPPWD for tarring work of Shaloo-Dhawas road. Truck was hired on 17.5.2004 by HPPWD. It has come in the statement of PW-1 Suri Devi, PW-2 Kanta Devi, PW-3 Suresh, PW-4 Neetu Devi, PW-5 Kewla Devi, PW-6 Janta Devi, PW-7 Kanta Devi, PW-8 Ramla Devi, PW-9 Ramla Devi, PW-10 Balo Devi, PW-12 Kanu Devi, PW-13 Fundi Devi, PW-14 Radha Devi, PW-15 Shanti Devi, PW-16 Sunder Singh and PW-17 Parma Nand that the truck was hired by the Public Works Department. Their husband/father, respectively were travelling in the truck which met with an accident on 21.5.2004. Accident took place when the labourers were being brought back from the work site. PW-17 Parma Nand has specifically testified that the truck was hired by the HPPWD to ferry labourers to the site of work and for carriage of material. The work site was about 20 KMs away from the section where the labourers were employed. The HPPWD officials had instructed the labourers to complete the work as it was time bound. 27. RW-1 Dhoom Singh has testified that he was employed in Fedaz section. According to him, for tarring work in Shamta section, labourers of Fedaz section used to be brought in a truck from Gumma to Banni. 33 labourers were brought from Gumma in the truck on 21.5.2004. The truck was under the control of Junior Engineer and Sub Divisional Officer since 17.5.2004. Labourers were being carried in the truck under the orders of Junior Engineer of HPPWD. Labourers were residents of villages near Gumma. Since they were to report for duty at 9.00 A.M., Junior Engineer had instructed the driver to carry the labourers upto the site of work. In the evening the same truck used to bring the labourers back to Gumma. Labourers were residents of villages near Gumma. Since they were to report for duty at 9.00 A.M., Junior Engineer had instructed the driver to carry the labourers upto the site of work. In the evening the same truck used to bring the labourers back to Gumma. RW-2 Madan Singh has also testified that truck during the relevant period was under the control of Junior Engineer. It was being driven under his instructions. Junior Engineer had asked the labourers to assemble at Gumma to travel by truck from Gumma to Banni and back. They were doing the job of laying grit on the road. They used to go for collecting grit, loading and unloading the same. RW-4 Karnal Narayan has also testified that it transpired during his investigation that truck was hired by HPPWD and the labourers were taken from site to Gumma. According to RW-5 Balbir Singh Thakur neither he nor anyone else from the department gave any oral or written instructions to the owner of the truck or driver to carry labourers in the truck. However, he has admitted, as noticed above, tarring was being done under his instructions. The truck used to run under instructions of Junior Engineer for carriage of stones. RW-6 Ishwar Singh, owner of the truck, has also stated that he was told by his driver that the labourers were being carried in the truck. 28. In view of overwhelming evidence adduced by the claimants, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that truck was hired by the HPPWD for the construction of Shaloo-Dhawas road. The truck was being driven under the instructions of Junior Engineer. He used to instruct the labourers to assemble at Gumma to facilitate their travelling from Gumma to the site of work. They were also being brought back to Gumma. Labourers were residents of villages near Gumma. The truck used to come from Gumma to the site of work in the morning and used to go back to Gumma in the evening. The labourers were residents at a distance of 25 KMs from the work site. Junior Engineer had instructed the driver to carry the labourers in the morning and evening. It has also come in the evidence that labourers also used to load and unload stones also. The truck was under the control of personnel of the HPPWD. The labourers were residents at a distance of 25 KMs from the work site. Junior Engineer had instructed the driver to carry the labourers in the morning and evening. It has also come in the evidence that labourers also used to load and unload stones also. The truck was under the control of personnel of the HPPWD. The HPPWD has rightly been treated as owner by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 29. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Zila Sahakari Kendrya Bank Maryadit v. Shahjadi Begum and others, 2006 ACJ 2845 , where jeep of bank alongwith its driver was requisitioned for election duty, have held that the requisitioning authority was the employer. Their Lordships have held as under: "11. However, the term "employee" has not been defined in the Act. The definition of employer, therefore, embraces within its fold not only a person who employs another either permanently or on temporary basis but also those who were in control of the workman temporarily lent or let on hire to them by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service. It is, therefore, a broad definition. 12. Para 13 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./7/2007 date 27-1-2007.Indisputably, the owner of the jeep was bound to comply with the order of requisition of a vehicle when the same is required to be placed on election duty. If the deceased was under the control of the Bank herein and in effect and substance under the control of Respondent 2, the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation committed jurisdictional error in directing the appellant to deposit the amount of compensation. The High Court, in that view of the matter, should have, in our considered view, taken a liberal view in the matter and condoned the delay in filing the appeal as also depositing the awarded amount in the court. If the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation was wholly without jurisdiction, the same was a nullity. It was a coram non judice. It has been found as of fact by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation that the deceased was under the complete control of the requisitioning authority. He would, therefore, be the employer. As the jeep was requisitioned under a statute, the Bank had no other option but to put the same under the services of the requisitioning authority. It has been found as of fact by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation that the deceased was under the complete control of the requisitioning authority. He would, therefore, be the employer. As the jeep was requisitioned under a statute, the Bank had no other option but to put the same under the services of the requisitioning authority. In terms of requisition, the services of the deceased, thus, were also placed. The employer, thus, would be the requisitioning authority, namely, the State of M.P. 13. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the requisitioning authority is liable to pay the amount of compensation. Although the State of M.P. is not a party before us, keeping in view the fact that Respondent 2 was its employee and a jeep was requisitioned under the authority of the District Election Officer, interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant herein is directed to be reimbursed in respect of the amount which has already been deposited by him in terms of the order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. The amount deposited by the appellant shall be returned to it within eight weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the said date till the actual payment." 30. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and others, 2008 ACJ 705 have held that when the car was requisitioned by the Election Department save and except for legal ownership, for all intents and purport the registered owner loses entire control over the vehicle and the State alone is liable. Their Lordships have held as under: "8. The 1988 Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. It repeals and replaces the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "the 1939 Act"). 9. Their Lordships have held as under: "8. The 1988 Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. It repeals and replaces the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "the 1939 Act"). 9. "Owner" has been defined in Section 2(19) of the 1939 Act to mean: "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, *** *** *** (19) "owner" means, where the person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a higher purchase agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;" However, the said definition underwent a change by reason of Section 2(30) of the 1988 Act providing: "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, *** *** *** (30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;" 10. Parliament either under the 1939 Act or the 1988 Act did not take into consideration a situation of this nature. No doubt, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle despite the fact that the same was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the Representation of People Act. A vehicle is requisitioned by a statutory authority, pursuant to the provisions contained in a statute. The owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise any control thereover. The driver may still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction of the officer of the State, who is put in-charge thereof. Save and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, the registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control thereover. He has no say as to whether the vehicle should be driven at a given point of time or not. He cannot ask the driver not to drive a vehicle on a bad road. Save and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, the registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control thereover. He has no say as to whether the vehicle should be driven at a given point of time or not. He cannot ask the driver not to drive a vehicle on a bad road. He or the driver could not possibly say that the vehicle would not be driven in the night. The purpose of requisition is to use the vehicle. For the period the vehicle remains under the control of the State and/or its officers, the owner is only entitled to payment of compensation therefor in terms of the Act but he cannot not exercise any control thereupon. In a situation of this nature, this Court must proceed on the presumption that the Parliament while enacting the 1988 Act did not envisage such a situation. If in a given situation, the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view. 15. In Kailash Nath Kothari (supra), however, this Court in a case, where a bus was given on lease by the owner of the vehicle Shri Sanjay Kumar in favour of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, held that when an accident takes place when the bus was plied under the control of the Corporation, it was the Corporation alone who would be liable for payment of compensation, stating: "Driver of the bus, even though an employee of the owner, was at the relevant time performing his duties under the order and command of the conductor of RSRTC for operation of the bus. So far as the passengers of the ill-fated bus are concerned, their privity of contract was only with the RSRTC to whom they had paid the fare for travelling in that bus and their safety therefore became the responsibility of the RSRTC while travelling in the bus. They had no privity of contract with Shri Sanjay Kumar, the owner of the bus at all. Had it been a case only of transfer of services of the driver and not of transfer of control of the driver from the owner to RSRTC, the matter may have been somewhat different. They had no privity of contract with Shri Sanjay Kumar, the owner of the bus at all. Had it been a case only of transfer of services of the driver and not of transfer of control of the driver from the owner to RSRTC, the matter may have been somewhat different. But on facts in this case and in view of Conditions 4 to 7 of the agreement (supra), the RSRTC must be held to be vicariously liable for the tort committed by the driver while plying the bus under contract of the RSRTC. The general proposition of law and the presumption arising therefrom that an employer , that is the person who has the right to hire and fire the employee, is generally responsible vicariously for the tort committed by the employee concerned during the course of his employment and within the scope of his authority, is a rebuttable presumption. If the original employer is able to establish that when the servant was lent, the effective control over him was also transferred to the hirer, the original owner can avoid his liability and the temporary employer or the hirer , as the case may be, must be held vicariously liable for the tort committed by the employee concerned in the course of his employment while under the command and control of the hirer notwithstanding the fact that the driver would continue to be on the payroll of the original owner. The proposition based on the general principle as noticed above is adequately rebutted in this case not only on the basis of the evidence led by the parties but also on the basis of Conditions 6 and 7 (supra), which go to show that the owner had not merely transferred the services of the driver to the RSRTC but actual control and the driver was to act under the instructions, control and command of the conductor and other officers of the RSRTC." We may also notice at this stage certain judgments of some High Courts. 16. In The National Insurance Co. 16. In The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar Samal and Others [ 1988 (2) T.A.C. 25 ] where the vehicle was requisitioned by the Collector for election duty, the High Court of Orissa held: "In a vehicle requisitioned, the driver remains under the control of the Collector and by such driving the vehicle he can be accepted to have been employed by the Collector. Thus, the Collector would be vicariously liable for the act of the driver in the present case." [See also New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Ramulamma and others 1989 ACJ 596 ] 17. In Chief Officer, Bhavnagar Municipality and another v. Bachubhai Arjanbhai and others [AIR 1996 Gujarat 51], the High Court of Gujarat held: "7. The facts on record clearly indicate that the vehicle in question which belonged to the State of Gujarat was entrusted to the Municipality for distribution of water to the citizens. It was implicit in allowing the vehicle being used for such purpose that the State of Gujarat which owned the vehicle also caused or allowed any driver of the Municipality who was engaged in the work of distribution of water to the citizens, to use motor vehicle for the purpose. Therefore, when the vehicle was driven by the driver of the Municipality and the accident resulted due to his negligence, the insurer of the vehicle became liable to pay the compensation under the provisions of the Act. It is, therefore, held that the State, as the owner of the vehicle and the respondent Insurance Company as its insurer were also liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal_" 18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the State shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and not the registered owner of the vehicle and consequently the appellant herein. 31. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly held the appellant liable to pay the compensation. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has also correctly assessed the income of the deceased in all the cases and applied the appropriate multiplier 32. Accordingly, there is no merit in all these appeals and the same are dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.