SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL DEEMED UNIVERSITY

Purnya Kala Devi v. state of Assam and ors. (2007) 3 GLR 932-
Critical Analysis
__________________________________________________________________________________

Submitted by

OSHI YADAV
--------------------------------------------

Division – ‘B’ PRN – 21010323086 Class of BA LLB – SEM – 1

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD

In

January, 2022

Under the guidance of

Mrs. K. Shanti
Assistant Professor
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

1
Contents

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................3
Research Objectives..............................................................................................................................5
Research Questions...............................................................................................................................5
Research Methodology..........................................................................................................................5
Literature Review..................................................................................................................................6
Case History..........................................................................................................................................7
Issues Raised and the Judgment Passed.................................................................................................8
Further Developments.........................................................................................................................10
Critical Analysis..................................................................................................................................11
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................13

2
Abstract

The case of Purnya Kala devi v. state of assam and others 1 is one that deals with requisition
and who should be fastened with the liability of compensation in the case of an accident.
Purnya Kala Devi is a widow with four children who approached the Tribunal claiming
compensation as her husband died in a road accident that was caused by the negligence of a
bus driver. The case follows the arguments and decisions made by the Tribunal and the High
Court of Guwahati which fastened the registered owner of the vehicle, Mr. Abdul Salam,
with the liability of paying the compensation. The case involves sections from the Motor
Vehicles act of 19882 and Motor Vehicles Act, 19503. The analysis of the same will be based
on the factual statements of the judgement and an in-depth study of the concepts at the centre
of the same. The objective of the study is to understand concepts of requisition, liability and
compensation while also understanding the standing legislature like Motor Vehicles Act 4 and
the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act5.

Introduction

The Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 deals with the requisition of
vehicles, payment of compensation, control of said vehicle and release of the said vehicle.
Once a vehicle is requisitioned, it comes under the possession and control of the government
and the same is liable for any tort committed by the said vehicle. The Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 deals with the almost all aspects of road transport vehicles. It includes provisions for
registrations of vehicles, vehicle insurance, traffic regulations, controlling permits, etc. It
talks about who shall be fastened with the liability of compensation in case of an accident. It
also gives a clear view on who is considered the owner of a vehicle. In the case of Purnya
Kala Devi v. the State of Assam and Ors 6. all these concepts converge into one question of
whom should the liability of compensation fall upon? The vehicle in question is requisitioned
by the Government of Assam and upon its release gets into an accident causing the death of a
1
Purnya Kala Devi v. state of Assam and ors. (2007) 3 GLR 932
2
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
3
Motor Vehicles Act, 1950
4
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
5
the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968
6
Purnya Kala Devi v. state of Assam and ors. (2007) 3 GLR 932

3
civilian. It is clear that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving of the driver and
that the widow of the deceased is eligible for compensation. The big question is who is liable.
Is it Mr. Abdul Salam who is the registered owner of the vehicle? Is the person who
purchased the vehicle, or is the State of Assam as the said vehicle was requisitioned by them.
The research methodology used during the study is called doctrinal research and it is
qualitative, analytical and descriptive in nature. The case follows the arguments and decisions
made by the Motor Vehicles Act Tribunal and the High Court of Guwahati which fastened
the registered owner of the vehicle, Mr. Abdul Salam, with the liability of paying the
compensation. The vehicle was released from requisition just before the accident took place
and according the judgement of Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam and Ors. 7 the state of
Assam cannot be forced to pay due to the same. The study also takes into consideration the
developments that took place in the case as the same was overruled by the hon’ble Supreme
Court of India. The study analyses the shortcomings of the case and provides an alternative
decision that overcomes the same.

Research Objectives
The study titled ‘Purnya Kala Devi v. the state of Assam and others – Critical Case Analysis’
seeks to reflect what exactly its title requires it to, which is to critically analyse the case. The
objectives of the study are mentioned below:

7
Purnya Kala Devi v. state of Assam and ors. (2007) 3 GLR 932

4
 1. To explain briefly to the readers, the facts of the case.
2. To analyse in detail upon the various aspects of the judgement given by the Guwahati
High Court in the case dealing with ownership and liability of compensation.
3. To analyse the concept of ownership and to check whether elements of the same exist
in the case at hand.
4. To understand its shortcomings and reasons as to why it was overruled by the
Supreme Court.

Research Questions
With the above-mentioned objectives in mind, the critical study of the case shall aim at
answering the following questions:

1. Is the registered owner liable to pay compensation, even if the offending vehicle is not
under his possession or control?
2. Does the state hold no responsibility of the vehicles it requisitions, if yes then to what
extent.

Research Methodology

The study titled ‘Purnya Kala Devi v. state of Assam and ors. (2007) 3 GLR 932-Critical
Analysis’ uses the research methodology known as ‘doctrinal research’. refers to a way of
conducting research which is usually thought of as “typical legal research. This means that
books, articles and journals are the main forms of sources in gathering information that is
needed. The doctrinal form of research methodology is the most suitable methodology for the
present study as ot requires extensive research on concepts o torts and law. The essentials for
the effective presentation of the study would thereby be journals and articles that provide
knowledge about case laws, statuettes and concepts like liability, requisition and
compensation.

Literature Review

5
The Law of Torts, 27th edition8: The ‘Law of Torts’ authored by Akshay Sapare has been very
helpful in the study in order as it provides an in-depth knowledge of the concept of liability
and in analysing whether the elements of the same are present in the case.

Motor Accident Claims: Law and Procedure 9 by Janak Raj Jay has been instrumental in
helping understand the Motor Vehicle Acts Tribunals and various sections of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Not only that, it also includes remedy for the victims of motor vehicle
accidents caused due to negligence while driving. It also draws distinction between liability
of compensation on owner, driver and the insurer.

Ascertaining Civil Liability and Ensuring Victims' ‘Right to Compensation’ in Human

Disasters: An Elusive Judicial Proposition 10 by Subhradipta Sarkar talks about the importance
of compensation under private rights of an individual. It talks about Section 140 of the Motor
Vehicles Act11 and how a claimant receive compensation without having to prove negligence.
It was instrumental in understanding the extent of compensation that can be granted and was
of great assistance in understanding the vicarious liability that can fall on the state.

Claims for Compensation Before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals12 by Sri C. Laxmi
Narain gives an overview of the procedure for filing claims of compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act13. It lays emphasis on calculating the damages that can be awarded and was
helpful in understanding sections dealing with the same.

Case History

8
Akshay Sapre, Law of Torts
9
Janak Raj Jay, Motor Accident Claims: Law and Procedure
10
Subhradipta Sarkar, Ascertaining Civil Liability and Ensuring Victims' ‘Right to Compensation’ in Human
Disasters: An Elusive Judicial Proposition (2013) 3 GJLDP (October) 101
11
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
12
Laxmi Narain, Claims for Compensation Before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (1998) 1 LW (JS) 17
13
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

6
16.2.1993, at about 10.15 a.m., the claimant’s husband, Dhanbahadur Chhetry, was going on
the road where he met his demise after he was run over by a bus with the registration No.
AMZ-6858. His death was due to the negligent and rash driving of the driver. The claimant
then sought a compensation of 2,00,000 under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 14
according to which “the death or permanent disablement of any person which has occurred
due to the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the
case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay
compensation in respect of such death or disablement”15

The compensation claim was made not only against the registered owner of the vehicle,
Abdul Salam but also against Jalil Haque, who purchased the vehicle. After being served
with the notice, Mr. Abdul Salam, stated that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was
under requisition by the State government, the order of requisition having been made by the
SDO (Civil), hence, it was the state department who was liable to pay any compensation.
The Sub- divisional officer then in his written statement stated that the vehicle in question
stood released at 10:30PM around which the accident took place. Thus, not having any
liability to pay the compensation.

With all the facts and evidence presented before them, the learned tribunal awarded the
claimant a compensation of Rs. 1,41,400 and directed Mr. Abdul Salam to pay the
compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and also contending the fact that,
at the relevant point of time, stood requisitioned by the State government, it is the State
government, who ought to have been made liable to pay compensation to the claimant 16, Mr.
Abdul Salam appealed the same in Guwahati High Court.

Issues Raised and the Judgment Passed

14
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 sec.140
15
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 140
16
Purnya Kala Devi v. state of Assam and ors. (2007) 3 GLR 932

7
The order of the tribunal in the matter was passed in 2002, after which the widow of the
deceased filed an appeal in the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati contesting the same. The
case was decided upon in 2007, the judgement of which was reversed in 2014. The appellant
did not have any issues regarding the sum of the compensation but was aggrieved by the
amount of funeral expenses and loss of consortium which she was rewarded as Rs. 2,000 and
Rs. 5,000 respectively. And even though the counsel for the appellant did agree that there was
no evidence of the actual costs incurred by the appellant, he did turn to the judgement of Lata
Wadhwa v. State of Bihar17, in which the Supreme Court has held that in an appropriate case,
the loss of consortium can be as high as Rs. 50,000.

The issues raised during the trial were whether the state can be held liable to pay the
compensation and who is regarded as the actual ‘owner’ of the vehicle.

Sub-section (1) of section 168 of the M.V. Act, 1988, states that compensation shall be
payable by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. In the case
at hand, as the vehicle was without insurance, the liability of paying the compensation falls
on either the owner or driver or both. According to section (1) of the Assam Requisition and
Control of Vehicles Act, 1988, if in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or
expedient so to do for purpose essential to the life of the community of for maintaining public
order or for facility of public transport, it may pass an order in writing requisitioning any
vehicle and may make such orders as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient in
connection with such requisition.18

Section 2(30) of the MVA19 defines an “owner” as a person in whose name a motor vehicle
stands registered, and where such a person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in
relation to a motor vehicle which is subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of
lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that
agreement20. According to section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 “owner” means,
“where the person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such minor,
and in relation to a motor vehicle, which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, the
person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;”21

17
Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197
18
The Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 sec.1
19
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
20
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 sec. 2(30)
21
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 sec.2(19)

8
After carefully reading the two definitions of ‘owner’ we can safely conclude that the state
government can be an owner if the said vehicle is registered in their name or their possession
of the same falls under a hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement
of hypothecation.

According to section (1) of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1988, If in
the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient so to do for purpose essential
to the life of the community of for maintaining public order or for facility of public transport,
it may pass an order in writing requisitioning any vehicle and may make such orders as may
appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with such requisition 22. The fact
remains that requisition gives the requisitioning authority the control and possession of the
vehicle but it does not vest them with the ownership of the vehicle. The same cannot be
confused with the definition of acquisition which refers to the transfer of ownership by
passing the title of owner. Thus, when the state government requisites any vehicle, it only
takes over the possession of the same while the owner remains the one in who’s name the
vehicle was registered.

Based on the above discussion, the hon’ble judge ruled that “the claimant-appellant is entitled
to receive the compensation and the same is payable not by the State Government, but by
Abdul Salam, who was the registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant point of time.
While the liability to pay compensation to the claimant-appellant shall remain with Md.
Abdul Salam aforementioned, as the registered owner of the said vehicle, the amount of
compensation is enhanced to a sum of Rs. 1,94,400.”23

Further Developments

22
the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 sec.1
23
Purnya Kala Devi v. state of Assam and ors. (2007) 3 GLR 932

9
After the judgment of Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam and others 24 was passed in 2007, it
was overruled by the hon’ble Supreme Court in 2014. The issues raised by the appellant
were that as the vehicle was under the requisition of the state thus it was the state who should
be fastened with the liability to pay compensation.

In the appeal, the appellants contested that the Sub district Officer of Udalguri requisitioned
the vehicle with Registration No. AMZ 6858, on 14th February, 1993, and placed it on
Government Duty on 16th February, 1993 at 10:30PM. It during this time that the vehicle met
an unfortunate accident that led to the death of the deceased. Even though the accident took
place after it was let go, the police officers could not provide any substantial proof solidifying
the same.

The Sub District Officer of Udalguri, who was appearing on behalf of the State of Assam,
stated “the fact of the case is that the vehicle was requisitioned by the Sub- Divisional Officer
(Civil) Udalguri on public demand. The vehicle was handed to O/C of Police Udalguri for
their duties. As per police report in the absence of driver the Handyman of the Mini Bus
drove the bus without any permission from the police and occurred the accident.”25

The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed its judgment on the appeal ordering the State of Assam to
pay the compensation to the widow. The official judgement stated “In the light of what is
stated above, we accept the stand taken by the appellant and hold that the appellant/claimant
is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,94,400/- as fixed by the High Court with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and the same is
payable by the State of Assam. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such deposit being
made, the appellant – Purnya Kala Devi is permitted to withdraw the same.”26

Critical Analysis

24
Purnya Kala Devi v. state of Assam and ors. (2007) 3 GLR 932
25
Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam and Anr (2014) (2014) 3 MLJ 471 (SC)
26
Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam and Anr (2014) (2014) 3 MLJ 471 (SC)

10
The court in the case of Purnya Kala Devi v. state of assam and others 27 relied on the
definition of owner from the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and failed to take into consideration
the legislative intention behind the same. The high court derived the judgement based on the
rigid definition of who the owner is based on the act but disregarded the responsibility of
someone in possession of the vehicle. Mr. Salam was the registered owner of the vehicle but
in no way was in control or possession of the same. In Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. &
Another28 the court noted “A private vehicle requisitioned by the State Government
under Section 160 of 1951 Act will not at all loose its character of being "Private Service
Vehicle" as exercise of requisition is merely a temporary deprivation of right of owner of
vehicle to use the vehicle.29” Thus even though the bus was a private vehicle, its possession
and responsibility belonged to the state of Assam.

In The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar Samal and Others 30 where the
vehicle was requisitioned by the Collector for election duty, the High Court of Orissa held:
"In a vehicle requisitioned, the driver remains under the control of the Collector and by such
driving the vehicle he can be accepted to have been employed by the Collector. Thus, the
state would be vicariously liable for the act of the driver.”31

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Deepa Devi & Ors 32, dealt with the question of who would be
liable to pay compensation if a requisitioned vehicle that was deployed for election day
causes an accident and the hon’ble Supreme Court of India noted “the State shall be liable to
pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and not the registered owner of the
vehicle “33

This brings us to the discussion of The Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicle Act, 1988,
which was completely side-lined the section of the Act that talk about the release of
requisition. The Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati failed to take into consideration Section
5(1) of The Act that states that “the officer or authority requisitioning a vehicle may at any
time release the vehicle from requisition and when it is decided so to do, a notice in writing
shall be served on the owner to take delivery of the vehicle on or within such date and from

27
Purnya Kala Devi v. state of Assam and ors. (2007) 3 GLR 932
28
Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. & Another (2015) ALL HC 3033
29
Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. & Another (2015) ALL HC 3033
30
In The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar Samal and Others (1988) (2) T.A.C. 25
31
In The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar Samal and Others (1988) (2) T.A.C. 25
32
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Deepa Devi & Ors (2008)1 SCC 414
33
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Deepa Devi & Ors (2008)1 SCC 414

11
such place and such person as may be specified therein.” 34 Section 5 talks about the release of
a requisitioned vehicles and sub section 2 states that with effect from such date of release, no
further liability for compensation or payment of any other kind shall lie with the authority
requisitioning the vehicle and the same was stated in the case of Hira Bharali v. state of
assam35. But the issue that stands is that the Sub Divisional Officer did not issue any notice to
the owner regarding the release of the vehicle which inevitably means that the vehicle was
still under the state government.

Not only that the High Court of Guwahati and the tribunal failed to honour Section 146 of
the 1988 Act36 that states that no person shall use or cause or allow any other person to use a
motor vehicle in a public place without an insurance policy meeting the requirements of
Chapter XI of the 1988 Act37 and the same was pointed out by the hon’ble supreme court in
Purnya kala devi v. state of assam38.

The decision of the high court in Purnya kala devi v. state of assam and others 39 wrongfully
fastened the liability of compensation on an innocent man who merely fit the definition of
owner and failed to understand the horizon of the same. But as the judgement of the supreme
court stands proof, it was overruled and the above points were fairly pointed out vesting the
liability of compensation on the one actually at fault.

Conclusion

34
the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 sec. 5
35
Hira Bharali v. State of Assam (2008) 1 SCC 414
36
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
37
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
38
Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam and Anr (2014) (2014) 3 MLJ 471 (SC)
39
Purnya Kala Devi v. state of Assam and ors. (2007) 3 GLR 932

12
The conclusion that can be drawn from the above study is that a registered owner cannot be
fastened with compensation if the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident, was not
under his control or possession. Neither can the purchaser of the said vehicle be liable if the
vehicle is not in his possession or control. Also, the state is liable for the vehicles it
requisitions until the same is returned to the owners following the due process of law.

13
14