Law of Torts, MV Act and

Consumer Protection
eSeries
S.5
• Continuing from where we left off…
• In Uber v. Aslam (2018), the Court of Appeal
upheld the position held by the Employment
Tribunal in UK that Uber drivers are not
independent contractors;
• As we saw earlier, the approach is a manner of
construction wherein it is seen whether terms
of the contract reflect the real terms of bargain
• Next we look at the next sub-part concerning Lending of Servants
The question here is simple: When A lends B to C, whether for that period C is the
master?
• In Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith (1946), the House of Lords
considered the following principles:
1. There is a strong presumption that the general employer continues to be the master
(i.e. A)
2. Burden is on the general/permanent employer to prove that there is a transfer of
service
3. Burden can be discharged by proving only that the entire and absolute control over
the servant was transferred to the hirer and that the servant had
expressly/impliedly consented to the transfer
4. A term in the contract between the general employer and the hirer, stipulating as to
who shall be the master, though relevant for determining their inter se liability, is
not conclusive against the person injured
• Later, in Savory v. Holland & Hannen 1964,
the Court of Appeal considered that just as
with employers who let out a man with a
machine, so also with an employer who sends
out a skilled man to do work for another, the
general rule is that he remains the servant of
the general employer throughout
• In Govt. of India v. Jeevaraj Alva (1970), the
High Court considered that:
a. When a vehicle is hired with its driver, the
driver continues to exercise his own discretion
which has been vested in him by his regular
master
b. The onus would shift where the hirer
intervenes to give directions and the driver
complies
• The Supreme Court considered the matter of
lending in Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari (1997),
wherein the Court considered a situation
where the servant continued to be on pay-
rolls of the owner.