9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Vicarious liability of the State for the actions of its employee. 2. Determination of negligence and unauthorized use of the vehicle. 3. Entitlement and quantum of compensation to the heirs of the deceased. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Vicarious liability of the State for the actions of its employee: The appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the High Court's decision that held the State vicariously liable for the accident caused by its employee. The accident occurred when a State Government jeep, driven by a clerk unauthorizedly, collided with a scooter, resulting in the death of Vijay Singh. The High Court found that the jeep was on official duty and the clerk was driving with the driver's consent. The Supreme Court affirmed that the State is vicariously liable because the jeep was being used for official purposes and the act of the clerk, though unauthorized, was within the scope of employment. 2. Determination of negligence and unauthorized use of the vehicle: The Motor Vehicles Tribunal and the High Court concluded that the clerk was driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and without a license. The High Court rejected the State's claim that the clerk had snatched the keys from the driver. Instead, it was established that the driver, who was under the influence of liquor, permitted the clerk to drive. The Supreme Court held that the State cannot escape liability as the act was related to official duty and the negligence occurred within the scope of employment. 3. Entitlement and quantum of compensation to the heirs of the deceased: The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation, which the High Court increased to Rs. 2,06,000 with 12% interest per annum from the date of application till realization. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach in compensation for motor accidents due to the increasing number of highway accidents. The Court noted that the jurisprudence of compensation must evolve to ensure victims' families are adequately compensated, even if the act was unauthorized but connected to official duty. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the State vicariously liable for the compensation awarded to the heirs of the deceased. The Court emphasized that the State's liability arises from the official use of the vehicle and the negligence of its employees, even if the specific act was unauthorized. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
