Verse 8.293-294

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

यत्रापवर्तते युग्यं वैगुण्यात् प्राजकस्य तु ।
तत्र स्वामी भवेद् दण्ड्यो हिंसायां द्विशतं दमम् ॥ २९३ ॥
प्राजकश्चेद् भवेदाप्तः प्राजको दण्डमर्हति ।
युग्यस्थाः प्राजकेऽनाप्ते सर्वे दण्ड्याः शतं शतम् ॥ २९४ ॥

yatrāpavartate yugyaṃ vaiguṇyāt prājakasya tu |
tatra svāmī bhaved daṇḍyo hiṃsāyāṃ dviśataṃ damam || 293 ||
prājakaśced bhavedāptaḥ prājako daṇḍamarhati |
yugyasthāḥ prājake'nāpte sarve daṇḍyāḥ śataṃ śatam || 294 ||

When however, on account of the driver’s ineptitude, the cart turns off and causes injury, the owner shall be punished with a fine of two hundred.—(293) If the driver is a trained one, it is he that should be punished; if the driver is untrained, all the occupants of the cart should be fined a hundred each.—(294)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 8.293-294)

‘Driver’—the man who drives the cart; his ‘ineptitude’ consists in his being not trained. What is said here applies to the case where the accident is due to this, and not to want of care; for when the driver is a trained one, the punishment should fall on him, there being no fault on the part of the master.

On account of the said ‘ineptitude,’ if the cart suddenly happens to ‘turn off,’—i.e., giving up the right path, swerves off either sideways or backwards,—and should thereby cause some damage, the owner should he fined for having employed an untrained driver.

In view of what is going to be said regarding the case ‘when a man is killed’ (296), where diverse penalties are prescribed in accordance with the nature of the living being injured or article damaged,—significance cannot be attached to what is said in the present verse regarding the fine being ‘two hundred’; all that is meant by the declaration is that the case cited is one calling for punishment; specially as there is nothing else (apart from the specific cases mentioned below) to which the exact amount of fine here laid down may he taken as applicable.—(293-294)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

(verse 8.293)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 863), which explains ‘prājaka’ as the driver and ‘swāmi’ as the man riding in the chariot;—in Smṛtitattva (p. 530), which explains the meaning to be that, in a case where the chariot goes astray on account of the inefficiency of the driver, and causes hurt to some one, a fine of 200 should be imposed on the owner of the chariot for the offence of having engaged an inept driver;—in Bālambhaṭṭī (2.299) which adds the same explanation as the one just given;—and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 282), which adds the following notes:—In a case where the owner of the chariot has employed an inefficient driver, and the horses go astray by reason of the driver’s inefficiency, and if there be any damages caused by this, then the owner should be fined 200.

It is quoted in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 1041).

(verse 8.294)

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 282), to the effect that in a case where the driver is efficient, the punishment shall be inflicted upon him; and it explains ‘āptaḥ’ as ‘fully expert’;—and in Mitākṣarā (2.300) which adds, that if the owner employs an expert driver, then it is the driver that is to be punished, not the owner;—and in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 1042).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.290-294)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.290.