CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has ruled that the registered owner of a vehicle cannot be treated as its owner for liability purposes if the vehicle was under the active control and possession of the government after being hired for public relief work.
Dismissing an appeal filed by the state government, the single judge bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy upheld a compensation award of Rs 31.92 lakh to the family members of a truck owner who died in a road accident during cyclone relief operations in 2018.
The government had challenged a March 24, 2023 order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Gajapati, which directed it to pay compensation to four legal heirs of the deceased. The accident occurred on NH-326A while the truck was carrying relief blankets for people affected by Cyclone Titli.
The state argued that the truck belonged to the deceased and was insured with a private insurer. Therefore, it could not be held liable as the “owner” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Rejecting the contention, Justice Satapathy noted that the vehicle had been hired by the district administration and was under the government’s operational control when the accident occurred.
“The undisputed fact is that the truck in question was under the rent of the district administration at the relevant time of accident for performing relief work and, thereby, the truck can be well considered to be under the requisition of the State of Odisha to perform public duty,” he observed.
Justice Satapathy further held, “It can never be disputed that the State of Odisha was in active control and possession of the truck at the relevant time of accident.
Therefore, following the definition of the owner as provided in Section 2(30) of the Act, the State of Odisha being in active possession of the truck under a contract of rent is considered to be the owner of the truck at the relevant time. But the deceased cannot be considered as an owner at the relevant time having parted with the control and possession of the truck to the State of Odisha.”
The judge also found no error in the MACT’s calculation of compensation, noting that the tribunal had correctly applied Supreme Court precedents regarding future prospects, non-pecuniary damages, and the multiplier method.
Accordingly, the high court directed the state government to satisfy the award within eight weeks.