Change In Statute Needed To Make Government/Insurer Liable For A Fixed Sum Payable To Motor Vehicle Owners In Case Of Injury Or Death: Jharkhand High Court
The appeals before the Jharkhand High Court were preferred against the judgment whereby the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the claim applications.
The Jharkhand High Court has recently observed that the Government cannot evade its limited liability in a case of an accident occurring on a public road. The High Court has suggested that an appropriate change be made in the statute making the Government/Insurer liable for a fixed sum, as in the case of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, payable to the owner in case of injury or death.
The appeals before the High Court were preferred against the judgment passed in Motor Accident Claim Cases, whereby the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the claim applications. The Appellant-State was directed to pay Rs. 3,48,880 each for the two claims.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi asserted, “An appropriate change in the statute that will make the Government / the insurer liable for a fixed sum, as in the case of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, payable to the owner in case of injury/death is the need of the day. This aspect needs due attention and the court fervently hopes and this court wish that it will gain deserving attention from the concerned department of the Government, and the court request to think it over as to how the citizen on the road accident can be compensated, being the welfare State.”
Standing Counsel Sanjay Kumar Tiwari represented the Appellant- State.
Factual Background
Both appeals arose out of the same accident, and the two claim cases had been filed by the relatives of the deceased. The claims pertained to an accident that took place when a motorcycle with three occupants was dashed by a Bolero Jeep belonging to the police. As a result of the aforesaid accident, two of the three occupants of the motorcycle succumbed to the multiple injuries.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the act of the driver of the Bolero Jeep was rash and negligent, which was established by the oral and documentary evidence, as discussed therein and on this background, the Tribunal decided the Issues in favor of the claimants.
“Undisputed principle of the law of torts is that the master is answerable for every such wrong of his servant as is committed in the course of his service, though no express command or privity of the master be proved and the wrongful act may not be for the master’s benefit. In fact, there is a catena of authority even for the proposition that although the particular act which gives the cause of action may not be authorised, still, if the act is done in course of employment which is authorised, the master is liable”, it said.
The Bench noticed that the vehicle in question was of the police department, which was driven by the driver of the said department. Reference was made to the Guidelines mentioned in Baxi Amrik Singh Versus The Union of India (1969). The Bench applied Guideline(viii) Baxi Amrik Singh (Supra), which says that the fact that the vehicle, which is involved in an accident, is owned by the Government and driven by its servant does not render the Government immune from liability for its rash and negligent driving. As per this guideline, the Bolero vehicle, which was involved in the accident, was owned by the Police Department and driven by its servant, and thus, it did not render the Government immune from liability for its rash and negligent driving. “In view of that the principle is clear that a servant is acting within the scope of his employment and in so acting, does something negligent or wrongful, the employer is liable even though the acts done may be the very reverse of that which the servant was actually directed to do. Thus, the accident is proved”, it said.
The Bench further mentioned that the Government cannot elude from its limited liability in a case of accident occurring in a public road, where road tax is levied by the Government. “Government can either shoulder it by itself or can fasten upon the authorised insurance company by statutorily making the company liable over and above the liability of the insured when they indemnify i.e., at the moment they are entering into an insurance contract as required under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, they should be made statutorily liable for the welfare state liability”, it added.
Thus, finding no illegality in the impugned award, the Bench dismissed both the appeals.
Cause Title: State of Jharkhand v. Pruan Prasad Guria & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:12529)
Appearance:
Appellants: S.C.-I Sanjay Kumar Tiwari
