1975 Supreme(AP) 13

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, K.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Government of Andha Pradesh, represented by Its Secretary, transport Department, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
K.Padma Rani - Respondent
Decided On : 01-23-75

The State Government is liable for the tortious acts of its employees, even if those acts are committed while the employees are performing sovereign functions.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SEC. 110-AA, 110-B, 110-D - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SEC. 110-AA - MOTOR ACCIDENT - LIABILITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT - SOVEREIGN FUNCTION - CROSS OBJECTIONS - MAINTAINABILITY - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

A tipper vehicle owned by the State of Andhra Pradesh, driven by the 3rd respondent, collided with a jeep in which the deceased, a Junior Engineer of the P.W.D, was travelling. The deceased sustained extensive injuries and died on the spot. The widow and minor daughter of the deceased filed a claim for damages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants. The State Government filed an appeal challenging the award, and the claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that: 1. The State Government was liable for the tortious act of its employee, the driver of the tipper vehicle, even though the accident occurred while the driver was performing a sovereign function. 2. The cross-objections were maintainable as the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, including Order 41 Rule 22, were applicable to appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 3. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and should be reduced to Rs. 38,000/-.

Issues: 1. Whether the State Government was liable for the tortious act of its employee, the driver of the tipper vehicle, even though the accident occurred while the driver was performing a sovereign function? 2. Whether the cross-objections were maintainable? 3. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Government was liable for the tortious act of its employee, the driver of the tipper vehicle, even though the accident occurred while the driver was performing a sovereign function, relying on the following: * Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which provides that a person entitled to compensation under both the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act can claim compensation under either of those Acts, but not under both. * The decision of the Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan, which held that famine relief work is not a sovereign function of the State. * Section 110 and the Rules made thereunder, which expressly make every owner of a vehicle, including the Government, liable for the tortious acts of its servants while driving the vehicle. * The decision of the Supreme Court in State of W. B v. Corporation of Calcutta, which held that the rule of construction that the State is not liable unless it is specifically exempted from liability is not an inflexible rule of construction. 2. The Court held that the cross-objections were maintainable, relying on the following: * Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which provides for an appeal to the High Court without specifying any procedure. * The decisions of the House of Lords in National Telephone Co. Ltd. v. Postmaster General and the Privy Council in Adaikappa Chettlar v. Chandrasekhara Thevar, which held that when a legal right is in dispute and the ordinary courts of the country are seized of such dispute, the courts are governed by the ordinary rules of procedure applicable thereto. * The decisions of the Madras High Court in Kamaraju v. Secretary of State for India and Secretary of State for India v. Chellikani Ramarao, which held that when an appeal is preferred to the District Court against the decision of a Forest Settlement officer, the appeal is preferred to the District Court as one of the ordinary courts of the country. * The decision of the Supreme Court in N. S. Thread Co. v. James Chadwick and Bros, which held that when an appeal is preferred to the High Court under a special statute, the rules of practice and procedure of the High Court applicable to a civil appeal will govern such appeal. 3. The Court held that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, relying on the following: * The decision of the Privy Council in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Company Ltd., which held that the pecuniary loss to the dependants of a deceased person should be ascertained by balancing the loss of future pecuniary benefits against any pecuniary advantage which comes to them by reason of the death. * The decision of the Supreme Court in Gobald Motor service v. Veluswami, which approved the decision in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Company Ltd. * The decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hindustan Ideal Insurance company v. Pakanti Ankaiah and others, which held that the pecuniary loss to the dependants of a deceased person should be ascertained by balancing the loss of future pecuniary benefits against any pecuniary advantage which comes to them by reason of the death.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State Government and allowed the cross-objections to the extent of Rs. 13,000/- over and above the Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.