Liability of registered owner, in case where Vehicle in question is requisitioned by government/Authority/Divisional Magistrate:

 Liability of registered owner, in case where Vehicle in question is requisitioned by government/Authority/Divisional Magistrate:

The car in question was requisitioned during the Assembly

Elections in the year 1993 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Rampur through the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. The said

vehicle was in possession as also under the control of the said

officer. On or about 17.11.1993 while the SubDivisional

Magistrate Rampur was travelling in the said vehicle, an

accident occurred as a result whereof a boy named Satish Kumar

sustained injuries. He later on expired. Under these

circumstances, who would be responsible to pay amount of

compensation? State Government or the Owner driver

and Insurance company of the said Car?

2. After considering several judgments, Hon'ble Apex court has

held that when a vehicle is requisitioned, the owner of the

vehicle has no other alternative but to handover the possession

to statutory authority/Government and once possession is

handed over and the accident resulted due to the negligent

driving of the driver of the Government, in such situation it

cannot be said that the owner has any control over said vehicle

and, therefore, under such situation, Owner and insurer are not

liable to pay amount of compensation but State Government.

3. This ratio is laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi, reported in AIR 2008

SC 735.

4. In another case before the Hon'ble Apex Court a Minibus was

hired by the Corporation and said minibus was being driven by

the driver provided by the registered owner and accident

occurred. Driver was supposed to drive as per the instructions of

the employee of the Corporation (Conductor), whether in such

circumstances, insurance company can be held liable?

1. Hon'ble Apex in the case reported in 2011 ACJ 2145, has held

that under such situation, insurer is liable to pay amount of

compensation.

5. In a case before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the vehicle in

question which belonged to the State of Gujarat was entrusted

to the Municipality for distribution of water to the citizens. It

was implicit in allowing the vehicle being used for such purpose

that the State of Gujarat which owned the vehicle also caused or

allowed any driver of the Municipality who was engaged in the

work of distribution of water to the citizens, to use motor vehicle

for the purpose and when the vehicle was driven by the driver of

the Municipality the accident occurred because of the negligence

of driver of Municipality. The issue before Hon'ble Court was as

to whether the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay the

compensation under the provisions of the Act or not?

1. It is held that the State, as the owner of the vehicle and

the respondent Insurance Company as its insurer were also

liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

This ratio is laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in

the case of Chief Officer, Bhavnagar Municipality v/s

Bachubhai Arjanbhai, reported in AIR 1996 Gujarat 51.

6. Corporation hired the vehicle – IC had not been informed driver provided owner but conductor was provided by the

Corporation – Tribunal held that accident occurred due to the

negligent driving of the driver but exonerated IC on the count that IC was not informed about hiring of the vehicle – whether

sustainable? Held;No.

2. In a case before Hon'ble Apex Court the facts of the case

was:U.P. State Raod Transport Corporation took Minibus

on hire from its owner for plying on the route alloted to

Corporation by RTO. Said Minibus rammed into a shop

resulting in death of five persons. According to agreement

between the Corporation and owner of the Minibus, said

bus was given on hire by owner of the bus along with

insurance policy and driver would be provided by the

owner and said driver was supposed to ply bus under the

instructions of conductor appointed by the Corporation

and as such Corporation was having overall and effective

control on the Minibus and its driver. In a claim petition,

insurer admits that premium for insurance of the Minibus

was same if it is plied by the owner himself or attached

with Corporation. It was not not even a case of the insurer

that prior permission of the insurer was required before

attaching Minibus with Corporation.

1. It is held that since Corporation has over all control of

the Minibus, it became the owner of the vehicle for

specified period and, therefore, insurer is liable to

indemnify the owner i.e. Corporation. Please refer to

ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

U.P. State Raod Transport Corporation v/s Kulsum,

reported in 2011 ACJ 2145.

All are liable i.e. Owner, Corporation and IC – 2019 ACJ 269 (SC)

– UPSRTC v/s. NI Com