In a significant ruling that clarifies the limits of sovereign immunity, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held the Union of India vicariously liable for a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of an Army truck driver. The court awarded compensation to four victims of a 1996 collision, firmly rejecting the Centre's attempt to shield itself behind the doctrine of sovereign functions.
Court Rejects Sovereign Immunity Defence in Road Accident Case
Justice Virinder Aggarwal, presiding over the case, delivered a decisive judgment that narrows the scope of sovereign immunity in India. The court was hearing petitions filed by four victims challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order from 2001. The tribunal had dismissed their compensation plea, accepting the argument that the Army driver's actions were protected as he was discharging a sovereign function.
The High Court overturned this finding, stating unequivocally that negligent driving on a public road cannot be equated with a sovereign function to absolve the state of liability. Justice Aggarwal observed that sovereign immunity is not absolute and operates only within a very narrow sphere of functions directly linked to the core sovereign powers of the state.
It cannot be invoked to shield routine administrative, operational, or vehicular acts of government servants from judicial scrutiny or civil liability, the court underscored in its order.
Details of the 1996 Accident and Legal Battle
The case stems from a tragic accident that occurred long ago in 1996. A military truck, driven by P K Tatyalall, collided with a car carrying the victims. The collision resulted in the victims sustaining multiple injuries, including fractures and head trauma.
While the tribunal in its 2001 order acknowledged that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Army driver, it denied compensation on the sovereign function ground. The court noted a crucial detail: the driver was also held guilty in court martial proceedings and was punished for causing the accident due to his negligent driving.
Despite this clear finding of fault, the tribunal failed to assess any compensation for the victims, leading to a prolonged legal battle that finally reached the High Court.
High Court Assesses Compensation, Ranges from Rs 60,000 to Rs 1 Lakh
Noting the tribunal's failure and the inordinate delay in the case—the accident happened in 1996—the High Court took it upon itself to assess the compensation. The court remarked that remanding the matter back to the tribunal would only cause further delay in providing relief to the victims.
The tribunal had not doubted the genuineness of the medical records or the fact that the claimants suffered substantial bodily harm. Their injury reports detailed fractures, head injuries, and multiple abrasions.
Considering the age of the victims, the nature of their injuries, the period of hospitalization, and the consequent pain, suffering, and emotional trauma, Justice Aggarwal's bench granted compensation. The amounts awarded to the four victims range from Rs 60,000 to Rs 1 lakh.
This judgment reinforces the principle of vicarious liability, where the employer—in this case, the Union of India as the owner of the vehicle—is held responsible for the wrongful acts of its employee committed in the course of employment. It sends a clear message that the state must be accountable for the routine, negligent actions of its servants on public roads, irrespective of the uniform they wear.
