"Liability of State Upheld in Postal Van Accident: Andhra Pradesh HC Holds ‘Owner Shall Shoulder the Responsibility’ for Driver’s Negligent Act"
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a matter under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, modified a compensation award to extend liability to the owner of a government vehicle involved in a road accident. The single-judge Bench of Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar held that the owner, in this case the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Prakasam District, was vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by an unauthorized passenger due to the negligence of the driver.
The Court set aside the lower tribunal’s exclusion of the vehicle owner from liability and directed the respondent-owner to deposit the compensation amount of ₹2,79,400 along with interest at 7.5% per annum within two months from the date of judgment. The claim against the second respondent, previously dismissed without costs, was thus modified. The Court concluded, “The responsibility that was fastened on R1 by the tribunal should also be extended to fastening liability on R2 as it has been the owner of the offending vehicle.”
The appeal arose from an order dated 22 July 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Eluru, in OP No. 80 of 2007. The appellant, Pulavarthi Daniyelu, sustained serious injuries on 28 December 2002 when he was travelling in a government Mini Van (Regn. No. AP 16 U 5376), operated by the postal department under the Ministry of Communications.
The appellant claimed he was permitted to board the van by its driver while it was en route from Addanki to Ongole. Near the Coastal Centre, the van reportedly went into a pit and overturned due to the driver’s failure to exercise reasonable caution. The injured claimant, said to be a pastor drawing a monthly salary, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of ₹1,50,000. The learned Tribunal eventually awarded an enhanced sum of ₹2,79,400.
In its order, the Tribunal concluded that the driver operated the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that the injuries to the claimant were attributable to such conduct. It awarded the following compensation: ₹9,000 towards simple injuries, ₹30,000 for one grievous injury, ₹5,000 each for pain and suffering and medical expenses, and ₹2,30,400 towards loss of future earnings.
However, the Tribunal held only the driver liable and exonerated the vehicle’s owner, the postal department, from liability. It was recorded in the award: “The respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the above said amount within two months from the date of this Award. … The claim against the 2nd respondent is dismissed, but without costs.”
Aggrieved by the exclusion of the owner from the liability structure, the claimant preferred the present appeal. The central issue before the High Court was whether the learned Tribunal erred in not fastening liability upon the government owner of the vehicle.
The appellant, represented by Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, argued that even if the passenger was unauthorized, liability must be affixed on the owner under the principle of respondeat superior. He submitted that the driver was an agent of the owner and the act of driving, even if negligent or unauthorised in the specific instance, occurred during the course of his employment.
On behalf of the second respondent, Sri G. Arun Showri, Central Government Counsel, contended that the Tribunal’s decision was valid and cited the Bombay High Court’s decision in Maimuna Begum v. Taju (MANU/MH/0372/1987), where the Court declined to hold the owner liable in cases involving unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle.
The High Court examined this contention in detail, distinguishing the present case on facts and law. Justice Dr. Krupa Sagar observed that the cited decision dealt with passengers who paid fare to travel in a goods vehicle, which was not the situation in the present case.
The Court held that the evidence clearly established that the injured was an unauthorized passenger, and the driver had no authority to allow such boarding. However, it stated that the legal responsibility of the vehicle owner remained intact.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. [(1977) 2 SCC 745], the Court noted that “the owner is not only liable for the negligence of the driver if the driver is his servant acting in the course of his employment but also when the driver is driving the car on the owner’s business or for the owner’s purposes.”
The judgment elaborated on this principle: “No owner ever granted any permission to any driver to drive the vehicle negligently or rashly and cause an accident. Therefore, no accident is ever authorized by any owner.” Further, it clarified that negligence of a driver during the course of his employment does not nullify the owner’s liability, especially when the actions lead to injuries to third parties.
The Bench also relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur [(2004) 2 SCC 1], reaffirming that while insurance coverage may not extend to unauthorized passengers, the owner remains liable under the law. It held: “The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 fastens liability on the owner though owner never drove the vehicle by himself.”
On the issue of sovereign immunity, the Court rejected any such defense by citing N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P. [(1994) 6 SCC 205], reiterating that the government, as a vehicle owner, cannot be immune from liability arising from negligence by its employees.
The Bench concluded, “For the mistake committed by its employee, it is entitled to take action against him. However, when such mischief on part of its employee during the course of his duties … resulted in accident and injuries to a third party, the owner shall shoulder the responsibility.”
The High Court allowed the appeal to the extent of modifying the earlier award by extending the liability to the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle. It ordered: “Respondent No.2 herein shall deposit the awarded amounts along with interest and costs occasioned before the claims tribunal within two months … if not deposited already. Rest of the conditions in the impugned award shall stand intact.”
Pending miscellaneous applications were directed to stand closed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: B.V. Krishna Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondents: G. Arun Showri, Central Government Counsel
Case Title: Pulavarthi Daniyelu v. Kollam Sudhakara Babu Prakasam District and Another
Neutral Citation: APHC010264502012
Case Number: MACMA No. 386 of 2012
Bench: Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar
[Read/Download order]
