Court caseAIR 1977 SC 1735

Purshottam Udeshi was travelling in a car belonging to the respondent company, a ginning and pressing concern, which was being driven by the company's manager. The car met with an accident in which Purshottam was killed. His widow and children, the appellants, claimed compensation from the company, alleging that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the manager. The company denied liability, contending among other things that the manager had no authority to carry the deceased in the car, so that, as a passenger given a lift, the deceased could not hold the company liable. The claim succeeded at first instance but failed in the High Court, and the claimants appealed.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held the company liable. On the facts, the manager was driving the company's car in the course of his employment, and taking the deceased with him was within the scope of his authority as manager; the company was therefore vicariously liable for his negligence. The Court declined to apply mechanically the older English view that a master is not liable to a person given a lift by his servant, noting the development of the law on the scope of employment. The Court also held that the circumstances of the accident, which the defendants did not explain, called for the application of res ipsa loquitur, so that negligence was established.