Requisitioning authority exercise of effective control over vehicle creates vicarious liability despite original registered ownership.

On January 14, 2006, the claimant, Umesh Chandra Pandey, sustained serious injuries when a Jeep (UK-04-1698) collided with the motorcycle on which he was a pillion rider.

The Jeep was registered to the U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation but had been requisitioned by the District Magistrate for the Pulse Polio Programme.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 7,24,000 with 6% interest, holding the State vicariously liable.

The State appealed the liability and quantum.

The claimant filed a cross-appeal (AO No. 7 of 2018) seeking enhancement due to 90% permanent disability.

1. Whether the State of Uttarakhand is vicariously liable for the accident involving a requisitioned vehicle registered to a different corporation.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was "just" and properly accounted for future prospects and conventional heads.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals.

For liability, it relied on the "effective control" test established in *Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari*, (1997) 7 SCC 481, which expands the definition of "owner" under Section 2(19) to include the entity exercising operational command.

Regarding quantum, the Court followed *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* (2009) 6 SCC 121 for multipliers.

*Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar* (2011) 1 SCC 343 for functional disability.

*National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* (2017) 16 SCC 680 for the mandatory addition of "future prospects".

The Court determined that although the Corporation was the registered owner, the State held "effective control and command" because the vehicle was requisitioned for government duty (Pulse Polio Programme) at the time of the accident.

Applying the *Kailash Nath Kothari* precedent, the State was held vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.

Regarding the quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment deficient as it failed to include future prospects.

Following *Pranay Sethi*, the Court added 25% to the annual income for the 48-year-old claimant.

It further observed that the Tribunal awarded inadequate sums under conventional heads such as pain, suffering, and loss of amenities.

It held that the State is liable for requisitioned vehicles under its operational control.

The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 7,24,000 to Rs. 10,50,000.

The Court further increased the interest rate from 6% to 7% per annum from the date of filing until payment and directed the State to deposit the balance within two months.