STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus KANCHANMALA VIJASING SHIRKE AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 22-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
KANCHANMALA VIJASING SHIRKE AND ORS. 
AUGUST 22, 1995 
[N.P. SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-S.146. 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S.94(1). 
Vicmious liability-Govt. vehicle dTiven by Govt. employee though not c 
the authorised d1ive1~Accident causing death of third party-State vica1iously 
liable when accident is in course of employment-Govt. liable for omission 
or negligence of employee even when employee acted in an unauthorised 
manne~Master cannot escape liability on ground thar he had not authorised 
the particular manner in which act was done. 
D 
Vicarious liability of State-Circumstances under which State is liable. 
In course of employment-Situations justifYing use of the phrase. 
A jeep belonging to the State Govt. driven by respondent no. 4, a E 
clerk and accompanied by the authorised driver, respondent no.3, hit a 
scooter and killed its driver. A claim for Rs. 4,00,000 was made before the 
claim Tribunal by respondents 1-3 alleging that respondent no. 4 was 
drunk at the time of driving but drove with the consent and knowledge of 
respondent no. 3 and so both respondents 3 and 4 were jointly and F 
severally liable to pay compensation. 
In the written statement, the State while admitting that respondent 
no 4 had no licence, was drunk, had snatched the keys from the driver and 
drove negligently causing the accident, diaputed the liability of the State. 
The Tribunal accepted these facts relying on records and directed respon· G 
dent no. 4 to pay Rs. 1,50,000 and absolved the State. 
~ 
The High Court on appeal, while confirming the finding of the 
Tribunal that respondent no. 4 was driving and caused the accident, how· 
ever found from the records that there was nothing to show that respondent 
no 4 snatched the keys or was drunk. The High Court also found that H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
' 
A 
respondent no 4 did not use the jeep for private purposes. Since it was year 
ending there was work to be completed and employees were asked to come 
to the office after dinner to do extra work. For this purpose the jeep was 
sent to pick up employees from their houses. It was the driver who was 
drunk and had authorised the respondent no. 4 to drive. There was no 
B 
c 
instruction to the driver not to hand over the jeep to any other employee of 
the State. The High Court therefore held the State to be vicariously liable 
and directed them to pay Rs. 2,06,600. 
In Appeal to this court, the Appellant State, inter alia, contended that 
respondent no. 4 was only a clerk, not authorised or required to drive and 
it was only the driver who was authorised to drive. The act of the respondent 
no. 4 could not therefore bind the State since he was not driving in course 
of employment and relied on Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuprasad 
Jaishanker Bhatt, [1966) 3 SCR 527. 
Dismissing the Appeal and upholding the order of the High Court, 
D this Court 
HELD : 1. The appellant State cannot escape its vicarious liability to 
pay compensation to the heirs of the victim. The High Court rightly came 
to the conclusion on the basis of the pleading and evidence on record, that 
the jeep was used in connection with the affairs of the State and for official 
E 
purpose. [6-F; D-E] 
F 
2. The facts of the present case disclose and demonstrate that an 
authorised act was being done in an unauthorised manner. The accident· 
took place when the act authorised was being performed in a mode which 
may not be proper but nonetheless it was directly connected with in the 
course of employment. It was not an independent act for a purpose which 
had no nexus or connection with the business of the State Government so 
as to absolve Appellant State from the liability. [14-D] 
llkiw v. Samuel and Ors., [1963) 1WLR991 at 998 and Stavely Iron & 
G Chemical Co. Ltd. v.Jones, (1956) AC 627 (1956) 1 All ER 403, referred to. 
3.1 The crucial test is whether the initial act of the employee was 
expressly authorised and lawful. The employer, as in the present case the 
State Govt. shall nevertheless be responsible for the manner in which the 
employee, executed the authority. This is necessary to ensure so that the 
H 
injuries caused to third parties, who are not directly involved or concerned 
STATE v. K.V. SHIRKE 
3 
with the nature of the authority vested by the master in his servant, are not A 
deprived from getting compensation. If the dispute revolves ar

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.