Requisitioning Authority is Vicariously Liable for Compensation if Vehicle is Under its Exclusive Operational Control

On November 25, 1994, a Deputy Mamlatdar died in a vehicular accident while returning from election duty in a jeep (No. GJ-7A-3337) driven at excessive speed.

The vehicle was privately owned by respondent No. 5 but had been requisitioned by the State of Gujarat/Mamlatdar for election duty from November 24, 1993, to November 30, 1994.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,56,100/- with 9% interest, holding the driver, the State, and the Election Commission jointly and severally liable, while exonerating the registered owner.

The State appealed, arguing that as it was not the registered owner, it should not be held liable.

Whether the State of Gujarat, as the requisitioning authority, can be held vicariously liable for compensation when the vehicle involved in the accident was privately owned but under the State's control for public duty.

The court applied the principle of vicarious liability in the context of state requisitioning as established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi (2007), which holds that when a vehicle is requisitioned, the state exercises such control that it becomes the "owner" for the purposes of liability.

It further relied on the recent Supreme Court precedent in District Magistrate and District Election Officer and Collector, Gwalior, M.P. v. National Insurance Company Limited (2026), which dictates that a public authority requisitioning a vehicle divests the private owner of custody and control, thereby shifting the responsibility for untoward incidents to the requisitioning authority.

The Court observed that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was in the "active control and supervision" of the State for election purposes.

It reasoned that requisitioning is a "command issued under statutory authority" rather than a voluntary arrangement, which changes the nature of possession entirely.

Since the State determined the deployment and use of the vehicle, it assumed the corresponding legal consequences.

The Court noted that the registered owner had no say in the vehicle's operation during this period; therefore, fastening liability on the owner or the private insurer for a risk generated exclusively by governmental action would be unfair.

It dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal’s judgment that the State, the driver, and the Election Commission are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

The Court directed the immediate disbursement of deposited amounts to the claimants and ordered the liable parties to deposit any remaining shares of the award with the Tribunal.