Case at a Glance
A school bus requisitioned by election authorities for Gram Panchayat elections in Gwalior collided with a motorcycle on 23 January 2010, killing the rider. The Madhya Pradesh High Court enhanced compensation to ₹27,01,556 and shifted liability from the insurer to the District Election Officer. The Supreme Court dismissed the State functionary’s appeal, holding that a requisition is a statutory command, not a voluntary arrangement; the requisitioning authority is the ‘owner’ during that period and must bear liability, since compelled public use is not the regular use the insurance policy covered.
On 23 January 2010, a bus owned by a Gwalior school collided with a motorcycle, killing its rider. At the time the bus had been requisitioned by the District Magistrate and District Election Officer for Gram Panchayat elections and was operating under the orders of the election authorities. The Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior awarded ₹5,13,500 with 6% interest from the date of filing.
By judgment dated 8 January 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the insurer’s appeal, shifting liability to the appellant, and also allowed the legal representatives’ appeal, enhancing compensation to ₹27,01,556. The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident and that public authorities have no ownership or insurable interest in a requisitioned vehicle. Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave assisted as amicus curiae.
The Key Question Before the Court
When a vehicle requisitioned for election duty causes an accident, is the insurer or the requisitioning State authority liable to pay compensation?
A Requisition Is a Command, Not a Contract
Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi, (2007) 12 SC CK 0080, the Court noted that a requisitioned owner “cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition” and loses control of the vehicle during requisition. Following the three-judge decision in Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam, (2014) 04 SC CK 0107, it held that the State which requisitions a vehicle falls within the statutory definition of ‘owner’, and the registered owner is not liable when the vehicle was not in his possession and control.
On policy, the Court said “a requisition is not a voluntary arrangement, instead it is a command issued under statutory authority”, and “the owner does not consent to part with possession; he is compelled to do so.” Compelled use for public functions is not the regular use contemplated by the policy, so “liability ought properly to be borne by the requisitioning authority, and not by the insurer.” It distinguished U.P. SRTC v. Kulsum, (2011) 07 SC CK 0108, where vehicles were operated under an agreement. It added that Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 does not expressly authorise requisitioning manpower; by accepting the vehicle with its driver instead of seeking staff under Section 159(2), the authorities accepted the driver’s competence, which further supports State liability.
What the Court Actually Held
- A vehicle requisitioned for election or other public functions is a statutory command; the requisitioning authority becomes the ‘owner’ for that period.
- Liability for an accident during requisition rests with the requisitioning authority, not the insurer, since compelled public use is not the regular use covered by the policy.
- Cases where vehicles are run under an agreement (such as U.P. SRTC v. Kulsum) are distinguishable from statutory requisition.
- The appeal of the District Election Officer was dismissed, leaving the High Court judgment, including the enhanced compensation, undisturbed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Thousands of private vehicles are requisitioned for every election; this settles who pays when one causes an accident.
- Victims’ families can pursue the State directly without the insurer’s defence derailing the claim.
- It clarifies the line between statutory requisition and contractual hire for insurance liability.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- If the offending vehicle was on election or other requisitioned duty, implead the requisitioning authority.
- The State cannot escape by pointing to the vehicle’s insurance policy.
- Seek enhancement on appeal where the tribunal under-assesses compensation.
For Counsel
- Prove the requisition order and that the vehicle was under the authorities’ orders at the time.
- Rely on Purnya Kala Devi for treating the State as ‘owner’.
- Distinguish agreement-based operation cases like Kulsum.
Key Takeaways
- Requisition transfers control, and with it liability, to the State.
- The registered owner and insurer are not liable for requisitioned use.
- Accepting the vehicle with its driver supports the authority’s liability.
- Contractual hire and statutory requisition are treated differently.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who pays compensation if an election-duty vehicle causes an accident?
According to this ruling, the requisitioning authority (here, the District Election Officer) must pay, not the insurer or the registered owner.
Why is the insurer not liable?
Because a requisition is compelled use under statutory authority, not the regular use contemplated by the insurance policy, and the owner has no control over the vehicle during requisition.
What compensation stands in this case?
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, so the High Court’s judgment, which enhanced compensation to ₹27,01,556, remains in force.
Conclusion
By treating requisition as a command rather than a commercial arrangement, the Court placed the burden of accidents on the authority that takes the vehicle for public duty. This protects vehicle owners and insurers from risks they never agreed to, while ensuring victims are compensated.
Practical takeaway: In MACT claims involving vehicles requisitioned for elections or other public duties, make the requisitioning authority a party; it, not the insurer, will be liable.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com