An RTC bus knocked down a pedestrian due to the rash driving of the driver. Discuss whether the RTC is liable to compensate the family of the deceased victim. If so, on what grounds?

1. Facts of the Case:

A public transport bus owned and operated by the Road Transport Corporation (RTC) was involved in an accident. The bus driver, while driving rashly and negligently, hit a pedestrian who was walking along the roadside. The pedestrian sustained severe injuries and later died.
The family of the deceased filed a claim seeking compensation from the RTC for the wrongful death caused by the negligent driving of its employee. The RTC, being a government-owned corporation, contended that the accident was the driver’s fault and not the Corporation’s direct responsibility.

2. Issues in the Case:

1. Whether the RTC, as a statutory corporation and instrumentality of the State. Can be held vicariously liable for the negligent act of its driver.
2. Whether the family of the deceased is entitled to compensation under public law remedies (Article 21 of the Constitution) or private law principles of tort.
3. What is the extent of liability of a State or its agency under the doctrine of vicarious liability? In case of negligence by its employee.

3. Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements:

1. Doctrine of Vicarious Liability:
   • Under this principle, a master (employer) is held responsible for the wrongful acts of his servant (employee) if such acts are committed during the course of employment.
   • Since the bus driver was employed by the RTC and was driving the bus in the course of his duty, the RTC is vicariously liable for his negligent act.
   • Relevant cases:
     • State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (AIR 1962 SC 933)
     • Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (AIR 1977 SC 1735)
2. Constitutional Liability – Article 21 (Right to Life):
   • The Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to live with human dignity and safety.
   • When negligence of a State instrumentality results in loss of life, the State (or its agency) is liable to pay compensation.
   • Case reference: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (AIR 1993 SC 1960), where the Supreme Court held that the State is liable to pay compensation for violation of fundamental rights by its employees.
3. Public Law Remedy vs. Private Law Remedy:
   • The victims of negligence by public authorities can seek compensation under public law (Constitutional remedy under Article 32 or 226) as well as civil compensation under private law (Tort).
   • The liability of the State is not limited merely to criminal prosecution of the employee but extends to providing monetary relief to the victim’s family.
4. Principle of Sovereign and Non-Sovereign Functions:
   • The traditional defense of sovereign immunity (State not liable for acts done in sovereign capacity) does not apply when the activity—like running a public transport service—is a non-sovereign function.
   • Hence, the RTC, performing a commercial and non-sovereign activity, cannot claim immunity from liability.

4. Possible Judgement:

The Court would likely hold that the RTC is vicariously liable for the negligent act of its driver. The accident occurred during the course of employment. The family of the deceased victim is entitled to just and fair compensation under both constitutional law (Article 21) and tort law principles. Running public transport is a non-sovereign function, and hence, the plea of sovereign immunity is not available to the RTC.

Accordingly, the Court may direct the RTC to pay adequate compensation to the deceased’s family. For the loss of life and violation of the right to life, reinforcing the State’s responsibility to ensure safety and accountability in its public services.

Understand how the law holds the State accountable for the negligence of its employees under the doctrine of vicarious liability. This case explains how an RTC bus accident caused by rash driving led. To State responsibility and compensation under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Ideal for LLB students and law professionals, this study bridges theory and practical justice. To explore more case studies, constitutional insights, and legal analyses. Visit lawgana.in and enhance your legal understanding through detailed and expert-curated law resources.