Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Neelesh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manu Luv Shahalia, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Ms. Usha Pant Kukreti, Adv. Ms. Jyoti, Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding liability in motor accident cases involving requisitioned vehicles:

• Shift in Liability upon Requisition: When a public authority requisitions a privately owned vehicle for public functions (such as elections), 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. Consequently, if an incident occurs during this period, the liability properly rests with the requisitioning authority (the State), not the insurer or the registered owner (!) .
• Definition of "Regular Use": An insurance policy obtained by an owner typically covers the vehicle's regular and lawful use in the ordinary course. Compelled deployment for public functions cannot reasonably be characterized as "regular use" within the usual contemplation of such a policy. Holding the insurer liable would extend the contract beyond the risk that was agreed to be covered (!) .
• Unfairness to Insurers: It is unfair to require an insurer to answer for consequences arising from a use that was neither authorized nor controlled by the insured. Insurers assess and underwrite risk based on the insured's ordinary operations; when the State assumes control and deploys the vehicle for its own purposes, the State assumes the corresponding responsibility (!) .
• Governmental Obligation: The exercise of statutory power to requisition private property in the public interest carries with it an obligation to answer for the consequences flowing from such compelled use. Imposing the burden of risks generated exclusively by governmental action on private parties and their insurers is unjust (!) .
• Loss of Control by Owner: During the period of requisition, the registered owner loses entire control over the vehicle. They have no say regarding when the vehicle should be driven, the route, or the conditions of operation. The driver operates under the direction of State officers, not the owner (!) .
• Legal Precedent on "Owner": Judicial precedents establish that when a vehicle is under the requisition of a statutory authority, the authority falls under the definition of "owner" under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, rather than the registered owner, because the registered owner does not exercise possession or control (!) .
• Implicit Authorization of Driver: When authorities requisition a vehicle along with its driver for public duties (like elections), they implicitly recognize the driver's competence and capacity. The authorities make a conscious decision to utilize the driver's services rather than providing their own staff, further shifting liability to the State (!) .
• Outcome of Appeal: In the specific case cited, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the District Magistrate, upholding the High Court's finding that the State functionary was liable to meet the compensation award instead of the Insurance Company (!) .