SITARAM MOTILAL KALAL vs SANTANUPRASAD JAISHANKAR BHATT

The Supreme Court held that the owner of a taxi was not vicariously liable for the actions of B, who caused bodily injury while driving the taxi without the owner's permission. The Court emphasized that for vicarious liability to arise, the act must be authorized by the master or within the scope of employment, which was not the case here as A was not present during the incident and had not authorized B to drive. The ruling referenced the principle from Storey v. Aston, affirming that the acts of A and B did not fall within their employment scope, leading to the dismissal of the claim against the owner.