State is vicariously liable for accidents involving vehicles requisitioned for official duty under its effective control.

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, though owned by U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corp., had been requisitioned by the District Magistrate for Pulse Polio duties.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 7,24,000 with 6% interest, fastening liability on the State of Uttarakhand.

The State appealed against the liability and quantum.

The claimant filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement based on 90% permanent disability.

Whether the State of Uttarakhand is vicariously liable for the accident when the vehicle was requisitioned for government duty but registered to another entity.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal met the statutory requirement of "just compensation," specifically regarding future prospects and conventional heads.

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

The Supreme Court precedent *Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari & Ors. (1997)*, which establishes that "owner" includes the person with actual possession and effective control (the hirer/requisitioning authority) rather than just the registered owner.

*Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009)* for the multiplier method.

*Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011)* for functional disability and loss of earning capacity.

*National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017)* regarding the mandatory addition of "future prospects" to income.

The Court determined that since the District Magistrate had requisitioned the Jeep for official duty, the State exercised "effective control and command" over the driver and vehicle at the time of the accident, making the State vicariously liable despite the Jeep's registration to a Corporation.

Regarding the quantum, the Court found the Tribunal's assessment deficient.

While the multiplier of 13 was correct for the 48-year-old claimant, the Tribunal failed to add 25% for future prospects as mandated by *Pranay Sethi*.

The Court re-calculated the annual loss of income from Rs. 48,000 to Rs. 60,000 (after 25% addition), resulting in Rs. 7,80,000 for loss of earning capacity.

It further adjusted awards for pain, suffering, and medical expenses to ensure "just compensation."

It held that the State is liable as the de facto owner during requisition.

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, directing the State to deposit the balance within two months.