Pushpa Thakur v Union of India (1984)

It is three paragraphs long, and that brevity is the point. By 1984 the Supreme Court no longer thought the question worth arguing: when a military driver runs someone over through negligence, the Union of India pays. The defence of sovereign immunity has no application.

Set it in the line of cases where the doctrine was dismantled — P. & O. Steam Navigation (1861) created the sovereign/non-sovereign distinction, State of Rajasthan v Vidhyawati (1962) refused to apply it to a government jeep driven negligently, Kasturi Lal (1965) applied it to police seizure of gold and became the case everyone criticises, and this decision shows how little was left of it in practice by the 1980s.

Its second use is practical: it is a quantum case. The Court fixed compensation and, more instructively, directed how the money was to be held.

The appellant was struck by a military truck. The injuries were catastrophic: fracture of both legs and amputation of the right leg.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, and the High Court both found, as a concurrent finding of fact, that the driver of the military truck was negligent and that the accident was caused by that negligence.

The High Court nonetheless rejected the claim on the ground of sovereign immunity — the truck being a military vehicle engaged in the sovereign functions of the State.

Does the principle of sovereign immunity protect the Union of India from liability for the negligence of the driver of a military truck?

Appeals allowed. The Court's statement of the principle is a single sentence:

"We are of the view that on the facts and circumstances of the case the principle of sovereign immunity of the State for the acts of its servants has no application and the High Court was in error in rejecting the claim of the appellant for compensation on that ground."

Negligence having been concurrently found, "the Union of India was, therefore, clearly liable to pay compensation to the appellant for the negligence of the driver of the military truck", and having regard to the nature of the injuries the Court fixed compensation at Rs. 1,00,000.

The directions on payment — worth knowing

The Court did not simply order payment. It directed that the sum be deposited with the Tribunal within four weeks, and then deposited by the Tribunal "in the name of the appellant in a nationalised bank at New Delhi on long term fixed deposit", with interest paid to her every quarter. She was given liberty to apply to the Tribunal to withdraw part of the principal "in case it becomes necessary for her to do so for sufficient reasons". If the Union did not deposit within four weeks, the amount was to carry interest at 12 per cent per annum. Costs of the appeals and the courts below were fixed at a lump sum of Rs. 5,000.

This structured-payment approach — capital preserved, income paid periodically, withdrawals on cause shown — became a familiar feature of compensation orders for seriously disabled claimants.

Sovereign immunity does not protect the State from liability for the negligence of its driver in running a motor vehicle, even a military one. Where negligence is established, the Union of India is liable to compensate the victim.

• Direct question: Discuss the liability of the State for torts committed by its servants. Trace P. & O. Steam Navigation → Vidhyawati → Kasturi Lal → the retreat, and use this case as a clean illustration of the modern position in a motor accident.
• Problem question pattern: a government or military vehicle causes an accident through the driver's negligence. Sovereign immunity is no defence; the State pays.
• On quantum, cite the directions here for the technique of preserving capital in fixed deposit with quarterly interest to a permanently disabled claimant.
• Note the honest caveat: the judgment is very short and gives no reasoning, so pair it with a case that does.