The Jharkhand High Court has strongly recommended the State Government to consider amending the Motor Vehicles Act to ensure a “fixed compensation” for victims injured or killed in road accidents involving government vehicles or when uninsured. This decision comes in response to a case where a police vehicle was involved in a fatal accident.
The High Court upheld the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s ruling that awarded ₹3,48,880 to the families of two young men who died after being struck by a police-owned Bolero. The court confirmed the State's responsibility, stating that the driver's negligent conduct led to the tragic deaths of 18-year-old Amit Aind and 22-year-old Roshan Guria. Both victims were riding a motorcycle when the incident occurred in 2013.
Read Also:- Jharkhand High Court Seeks Timeline From State for Filling Vacancies in JHARERA
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi stated:
"Roads are provided by the Government to ply the vehicles. As per the Motor Vehicles Act, personal injury coverage is not mandatory. Under such a circumstance, there will be a welfare state liability for the Government."
He further explained that in a welfare state, the government cannot avoid its limited responsibility in road accidents, especially when it collects road tax and provides public roads for all kinds of motor vehicles, including uninsured two-wheelers.
The Court made it clear that either the government itself or the insurer should be made liable by statute for such fixed compensation, similar to provisions under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Read Also:- Jharkhand High Court: ACP/MACP Benefits Must Be Based on Service Completion, Not Extra Qualifications
“An appropriate change in the statute that will make the Government / the insurer liable for a fixed sum is the need of the day,” the court urged, recommending that this issue deserves serious attention from the concerned departments.
In the case at hand, the State had filed appeals challenging the compensation, arguing that the motorcyclists contributed to the accident by riding carelessly and that the government vehicle was not insured. The High Court dismissed these arguments, stating that the doctrine of vicarious liability applied since the government servant (driver) was acting within the scope of his employment.
"If a servant does something negligent during the course of his employment, even if unauthorized, the employer is liable,” the Court noted, referencing landmark rulings such as Citizens’ Life Assurance Co. v. Brown and Gah Choon Seng v. Lee Kim Soo.
The court reiterated that in tort law, the master (employer) is answerable for the wrongful acts committed by their servants during employment, even if the act is not directly beneficial to the master.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand vs Pruan Prasad Guria
Case Number: M.A. No. 57 of 2025
