The driver of a car maintained by the State of A. P. for official use, drove it rashly and negligently while bringing it back from the workshop and knocked a pedestrian fatally injuring him. The heirs of the deceased sued the state of A.P. for damages. Decide.

Facts of the Case

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh maintained a government car for official purposes.
2. The driver, an employee of the State, took the car to a workshop for repair and maintenance.
3. While returning the car from the workshop, the driver drove it rashly and negligently, resulting in a fatal accident that caused the death of a pedestrian.
4. The heirs of the deceased filed a suit for damages against the State of Andhra Pradesh, claiming compensation for wrongful death.
5. The State contended that it was not liable, arguing that the driver was performing an act connected to a sovereign function, and therefore, the State was immune from liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether the State of Andhra Pradesh is vicariously liable for the negligent act of its driver, who was employed by the State for official duties.
2. Whether the act of the driver, while returning the vehicle from a workshop, constitutes a sovereign function or a non-sovereign (commercial/administrative) function.
3. Whether the heirs of the deceased pedestrian are entitled to compensation from the State for the wrongful act committed by its employee.

Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements

A. Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 300 of the Constitution of India
   • It provides that the Government of India or the Government of a State may sue or be sued in the like cases as the Dominion of India or the Provinces might have been sued before the commencement of the Constitution.
   • This Article makes the State liable in certain circumstances for the acts of its servants, similar to how the East India Company was liable under common law principles.
2. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
   • It guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
   • Negligence leading to the death of a citizen by State machinery may violate Article 21, giving rise to a claim for public law compensation.

B. Judicial Precedents

1. State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (AIR 1962 SC 933)
   • Facts: A government jeep driven by a State employee negligently hit a pedestrian, who died.
   • Held: The Supreme Court held the State liable for the wrongful act of its servant.
   • The act was not related to any sovereign function, but merely an administrative act connected with vehicle maintenance.
   • The Court emphasized that the State, being a legal person, should be held responsible for the tortious acts of its servants when not performing sovereign functions.
2. Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1039)
   • Facts: Gold belonging to a person was seized by the police and later misappropriated.
   • Held: The Court held the State not liable, as the act was done in the exercise of sovereign powers.
   • The case drew a distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions.
   • However, this decision has been criticized and limited in subsequent cases for being too protective of the State.
3. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (AIR 1993 SC 1960)
   • The Supreme Court recognized the State’s liability to pay compensation for violation of Article 21 when a person dies due to negligence or custodial violence.
   • This case marked the development of the doctrine of constitutional torts and public law compensation.
4. Common Law Principle of Vicarious Liability
   • A master is liable for the acts of his servant if those acts are committed in the course of employment.
   • The State, as an employer, is similarly liable for the negligent acts of its employees when such acts are connected with non-sovereign functions.

C. Sovereign vs. Non-Sovereign Functions

• Sovereign functions: Activities that can only be lawfully performed by the State, e.g., administration of justice, defense, and law enforcement.
• Non-sovereign functions: Activities of a commercial, administrative, or social welfare nature, e.g., transport, maintenance, and construction.
• In the present case, maintaining and repairing a government car is an administrative function, not a sovereign one.

Possible Judgement

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh is vicariously liable for the negligent act of its driver.
2. The act of bringing the vehicle from a workshop after repair is not a sovereign function, but an administrative duty incidental to the day-to-day running of the government machinery.
3. The heirs of the deceased are therefore entitled to damages/compensation from the State for the wrongful act committed by its employee during the course of employment.
4. The case is governed by the principle laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962), where the Supreme Court held the government liable for the negligent driving of its vehicle by a public servant.
5. The defence of sovereign immunity cannot be applied in this case, as the function performed by the driver was not an act of State or a function essential to sovereignty.
6. Thus, the suit for damages against the State of Andhra Pradesh is maintainable, and the State is liable to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased pedestrian.

About lawgnan

Discover how the Indian judiciary defines the State’s liability for negligent acts of its employees under Article 300 of the Constitution. Learn how courts distinguish between sovereign and non-sovereign functions, and why the State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962) case remains a landmark in establishing government accountability. Understand how doctrines like vicarious liability and constitutional torts shape modern compensation law in India. Visit Lawgnan.in for comprehensive case summaries, constitutional insights, and expert commentary on sovereign immunity and the evolving principles of State responsibility in Indian law.