Vicarious Liability: Andhra Pradesh HC Holds State Responsible For Injuries To Unauthorized Passenger Given Lift By Driver Of Govt Vehicle

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a driver is considered an agent of the owner who is responsible for the actions of the driver and holding the owner vicariously liable for the accidents caused by the driver serves public policy purposes.A Single Judge Bench of the High Court comprising Justice VRK Krupa Sagar, further asserted,“No owner ever granted any permission to any driver to drive the vehicle negligently or rashly and cause an accident. Therefore, no accident is ever authorized by any owner. Could it be said that when a driver acted negligently in discharging his function, it amounted breach of contract between the driver and the owner thereby absolving the owner from any liability especially when the accident cause death or physical impairment or injuries to the third party. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 fastens liability on the owner though owner never drove the vehicle by himself.”BackgroundThe ruling came in a case where the High Court was dealing with an appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging an order of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Cum–Additional District Judge, Eluru. Initially, a Mini Van (“offending vehicle”) belonging to the Government (Respondent 2), which was used for MMS services, went into a pit and consequently injured P Danieyelu, the appellant. There was no insurance policy protecting the offending vehicle against third-party risks and any liability arising out of the same was to be assumed by the Government. The appellant was an unauthorised passenger in the offending vehicle and the driver (Respondent 1) was not authorised to carry the appellant.When the appellant approached the claims tribunal seeking compensation, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was in the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle met with the accident owing to rash or negligent driving by its driver. Consequently, a compensation of Rs. 2,79,400/- with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded to the appellant and the same was to be paid only by the driver of the vehicle and not the owner.Aggrieved, the appellant challenged this order and approached the High Court on the ground that the award was erroneous as even if the appellant was an unauthorised passenger, the law does not permit the owner to be absolved of liability for the acts of its driver/agent.Explaining the doctrine of respondeat superior (let the master answer), which holds the owner liable for the actions of the driver, the Court reiterated that the doctrine is based on the idea that the owner has control over the driver and is responsible for ensuring that the driver acts responsibly.The Court observed that whatever the breach that may have been between the owner and the driver, the fact remained that the driver was driving the offending vehicle at the material point of time for the purpose of owner and in such a case, “the R2/owner of the offending vehicle is to shoulder the responsibility. For the mistake committed by its employee, it is entitled to take action against him. However, when such mischief on part of its employee during the course of his duties when resulted in accident and injuries to a third party the owner shall shoulder the responsibility. The legality of the award was not challenged before this court by the respondents herein. In such circumstances, this court has to state that the responsibility that was fastened on R1 by the tribunal should also be extended to fastening liability on R2 as it has been the owner of the offending vehicle.”The appeal was thus allowed to the extent that the liability shall also be extended to the owner/Respondent 2, who was directed to deposit the awarded amounts along with interest and costs occasioned before the claims tribunal within two months before the claims tribunal.Case Details:Case Number: MACMA No. 386 of 2012Case Name: Pulavarthi Daniyelu, W.g.district v. Kollam Sudhakara Babu Prakasam DistrictDate: 21.03.2025 Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 42 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Vicarious Liability: Andhra Pradesh HC Holds State Responsible For Injuries To Unauthorized Passenger Given Lift By Driver Of Govt Vehicle

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Vicarious Liability: Andhra Pradesh HC Holds State Responsible For Injuries To Unauthorized Passenger Given Lift By Driver Of Govt Vehicle

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers