|Principle A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.|
|Facts Mahesh was a driver working in a company Lipton and Company One day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiance Roopa waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to the negligence of Mahesh. Roopa was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Lipton and Company|
A) Lipton and Company shall be liable, because Mahesh was in the course of employment at the time of accident
B) Lipton and Company shall not be liable, Mahesh was not in the course of employment, when he took Roopa inside the car
C) Roopa got into the car at her own risk an therefore, she cannot sue anybody
D) None of the above
Correct Answer: B
Solution :This problem is based on Premvati Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 facts are not similar Lipton and company shall not be liable.
You need to login to perform this action.
You will be redirected in 3 sec