The Supreme Court has ruled that the government must compensate victims of road accidents if the vehicle in question is requisitioned for election-related duties and that the liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh passed the judgment while dismissing the appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government through the district collector and district electoral officer of Gwalior challenging a state high court judgment that directed the authorities to pay a compensation of around ₹27 lakh to the legal representatives of Rajesh Mandil, a motorcyclist killed by a speeding bus engaged by the collector for poll duties.
The state government had assailed the high court verdict on the ground that the bus was covered by an insurance policy at the time of the accident, making the insurer liable to pay compensation. The state government argued that the bus originally belonged to a private school and was requisitioned for poll duties under the Representation of the People Act.
It was submitted that the authorities neither had ownership of the vehicle nor any insurable interest therein, and making the government liable to pay damages would send a wrong message to the public because the bus was used for a public purpose.
Rejecting the state’s argument, the top court said that when a public authority requisitions a privately owned vehicle, the nature of possession and control changes entirely.
“The owner is divested of custody and decision-making power, and the vehicle is placed at the disposal of the State for governmental functions. During this period, the owner neither directs its use nor derives any benefit from it,” Justice Karol, who authored the judgment, said.
“It only stands to reason that in such circumstances, if an untoward incident occurs, responsibility would properly rest with the requisitioning authority and not with the insurer engaged by the owner for ordinary, private or commercial use, as the case may be,” it added.
The bench noted that when the vehicle was operated under official directions, the requisitioning authority determined the manner of deployment, the purpose for which it was used and the conditions under which it was operated.
“The owner has no say in these matters. Where control is assumed by the State, the legal consequences arising from that control cannot, in fairness, be shifted back to a private insurer whose contractual engagement was premised on a wholly different footing.
“It is equally important to recognise that a requisition is not a voluntary arrangement; instead, it is a command issued under statutory authority… The owner does not consent to part with possession; he is compelled to do so,” the bench said.
To fasten liability upon the insurer in these circumstances would be to extend the contract beyond the risk that it agreed to cover, the top court said.