1. The question which arises for our consideration is whether the State is responsible for the wrongful acts committed by its servants in the course of their official duties.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode in a suit for damages. The 1st defendant, the State of Kerala, is the first appellant before us. The trial court found that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the negligence of the 2nd defendant who was an employee of the 1st defendant and that both the defendants were liable in damages to the plaintiff.

3. The facts of this case may be briefly staled as follows: On the morning of 1112 1966, the plaintiff who was a student of St. Joseph's College, Devagiri, Calicut, was knocked down by a jeep car (Reg: No. KLD. 476) while crossing the Cannanore road. The jeep belonged to the Government of Kerala, the 1st defendant, and it was driven by V. V. Sreenivasan, the 2nd defendant. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Calicut, was travelling in the jeep. The jeep was escorting the Adviser to the Governor who was proceeding to Sultan's Battery after attending a College function at the B. T. College, Calicut. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff was seriously injured. His facial bone and right leg were fractured. He had to be hospitalised at the Calicut Medical College Hospital for a number of days. Even at the time of the institution of the suit, he had not completely regained his normal health. The plaintiff therefore claimed from the defendants a sum of Rs. 15,000/-by way of damages.

4. The defendants contended that the accident was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff in rashly and recklessly crossing the road. They stated that there was no negligence at all on the part of the 2nd defendant. It was further contended that the State was, in any case, not liable for the tortious acts of its servants.

5. The trial court found that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver, the 2nd defendant, and held that be was liable in damages to the plaintiff. The court further held that the State, as the employer of the driver, was vicariously liable for the consequences of its employee's negligence. It was accordingly held that the defendants were liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 8,000/-by way of damages together with proportionate costs.

6. The only question that was urged before us by the Government Pleader at the time of the arguments was as regards the liability of the State for damages in respect of the tortious act committed by its servant in the course of his employment. He contended that the State was immune from the consequences of such acts.

7. In The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati (1962) Supp. 2 SCR. 989, the Supreme Court stated that the liability of a State for damages in regard to the tortious act committed by its servant within the scope of his employment and functioning as such was the same as that of any other employer. The Court held that the State was not entitled to any immunity from vicarious liability for the tort committed by a Government driver while driving a Government jeep car from a workshop to the residence of the Collector for the latter's official use. Speaking for the Court, Sinha C. J. observed:

"In this connection it has to be remembered that under the Constitution we have established a welfare state, whose functions are not confined only to maintaining law and order, but extend to engaging in all activities including industry, public transport, state trading, to name only a few of them. In so far as the State activities have such wide ramifications involving not only the use of sovereign powers but also its powers as employers in so many public sectors, it is too much to claim that the State should be immune from the consequences of tortious acts of its employees committed in the course of their employment as such."

The court pointed out that in England the Crown was no longer immune from proceedings in court in regard to