2014 (7) TMI 773 - HC - Indian Laws

Compensation against the Motor Accidents - accident by the departmental drivers - The present stand taken by the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the appellant is that the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent herein were in the lawful exercise of a sovereign function as they were in search of drug pedallers involved in Narcotic Substances. It is argued that as the 2nd respondent was the department driver, who was on official duty and was driving the vehicle as a part of his duty, the State has no vicarious liability in the matter as the duty was in discharge of sovereign functions. - Held that - There is little scope for the said argument. The appellant, who is the first respondent, was sued in his capacity as the registered owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle was not covered by an insurance policy. Therefore, it is the duty of the registered owner of the vehicle to compensate the persons who sustain injuries in the accident caused by the said vehicle. The liability in the present matter on the State is not merely a vicarious liability in some wrongs committed by an official of the State, whereas the claim as such was on account of the injuries caused to the two third parties on account of the rash and negligent driving of a government official and the liability cast upon the State herein is in the form of a liability on the part of the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the registered owner of a vehicle for compensation in a motor accident case.
2. Claim of sovereign immunity in the context of a motor accident involving a government official.
3. Assessment of compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability of the registered owner of a vehicle for compensation
The case involved a motor accident where the claimants alleged that a Qualis car, owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent, caused injuries to them due to rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal found in favor of the claimants and awarded compensation. The appellant, the registered owner of the vehicle, contested the claim stating that no accident occurred. However, the court held that the appellant, as the registered owner, is liable to compensate the injured parties, especially when the vehicle was not insured. The court emphasized that the driver's negligence led to the accident, and the owner cannot evade responsibility by claiming sovereign functions.

Issue 2: Claim of sovereign immunity
The appellant argued for sovereign immunity, stating that the driver was on official duty related to drug enforcement activities. However, the court rejected this argument, highlighting that the accident resulted from the driver's rash and negligent driving, not from the discharge of sovereign functions. The court clarified that sovereign immunity does not apply in cases where third parties are injured due to the negligent actions of a government official.

Issue 3: Assessment of compensation
The Tribunal assessed compensation amounts for the claimants based on the evidence presented. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the compensation awarded was appropriate considering the injuries sustained by the claimants. The court found no merit in the Cross Objection filed by one of the claimants, affirming that the Tribunal's judgment was well-founded and did not warrant any interference. Consequently, both appeals and the Cross Objection were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to deposit the awarded amounts within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the liability of a registered vehicle owner for compensation in motor accident cases, clarified the inapplicability of sovereign immunity in such contexts, and upheld the Tribunal's assessment of compensation amounts.