Jharkhand HC Asks State To Consider Changing Law To Make Govt Or Insurer Liable For 'Fixed Sum' For Injuries/ Death In Road Accident

Upholding Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's order awarding compensation in a fatal accident caused by a police vehicle, the Jharkhand High Court asked the state government in its capacity as 'welfare state' to consider amending the law to make the government/insurer liable for a "fixed sum" in road accidents resulting in injuries or death. The Court also ruled that government was liable for the driver's negligent driving which had resulted in the death of two young men and upheld the compensation of Rs. 3,48,880 each to the kin of the two deceased men along with interest @ 7.5% per annum till its realization. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi in his order held:"Roads are provided by the Government to ply the vehicles. There are different kinds of motor vehicles including the motor bikes, where the owner will be riding the same on the public roads provided by the Government without any personal insurance coverage. Use and allied aspects of a motor vehicle are covered by the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the provision, personal injury coverage is not compulsory...Under such a circumstance, there will be a welfare state liability for the Government, which will partially eclipse the maxim volunti non fit injuria and fault liability theory. But 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.”The court further said that the Government can either shoulder the liability 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. "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 hope 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,” the Court further emphasizedWith respect to the case at hand the court observed that the Bolero vehicle, which was involved in the accident, is owned by the Police Department and driven by its servant and thus it "does not render the Government immune from liability for its rash and negligent driving", which the Motor Accidents Tribunal had held that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently."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,” the court added. The above ruling came in two miscellaneous applications preferred by the State government against the judgement passed in Motor Accident Claim Case whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim application and directed the appellant to pay compensation amount of Rs. 3,48,880/- to the claimants within thirty days from the date of award along with interest @ 7.5% per annum till its realization.Both the appeals arose from the same accident and two claim cases were filed by the relatives of the deceased and by the common judgment, the said two claims cases are allowed. As per factual matrix of the case, the claim application stemmed from an accident which took place in 2013 whereby a police vehicle, while allegedly being driven rashly and negligently, struck a motorcycle carrying three young men, Amit Aind (18), Roshan Guria (22), and Prince Kundulna, leading to the deaths of Amit and Roshan.It was argued by the appellants that the Bolero Jeep, owned by the police department and driven by a government servant, was not being operated negligently and that the motorcycle's riders had themselves contributed to the accident by driving in a zig-zag manner. It was further argued that the compensation award was not maintainable as the vehicle was uninsured.The High Court observed in its judgement, “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.”Placing reliance on Citizens' Life Assurance Co. versus Brown, reported ...

Jharkhand HC Asks State To Consider Changing Law To Make Govt Or Insurer Liable For 'Fixed Sum' For Injuries/ Death In Road Accident

Bhavya Singh

Tags