| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgment | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
Facts
- The first defendant , Lokumal, was a temporary employee of the appellant State, as a motor driver on probation. In February 1952, he was employed as the driver of a government jeep car, registered as No. RUM 49, under the Collector of Udaipur. The car had been sent to a workshop for necessary repairs.
- After repairs had been carried out, the first defendant, while driving the car back along a public road, in the evening of February 11, 1952, knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath by the side of the public road in Udaipur city, causing him multiple injuries, including fractures of the skull and backbone, resulting in his death three days later, in the hospital where he had been removed for treatment.
- The plaintiffs, who are Jagdishlal’s widow and a minor daughter, aged three years, through her mother as next friend, sued the said Lokumal and the State of Rajasthan for damages for the tort aforesaid. T
Principles
- “Qui Facit per Alium Facit per se” which means that the act of an agent is the act of the principal.
- “In this connection, it has to be remembered that under the Constitution, we have established a welfare State, whose functions are not confined only to maintaining law and order, but extend to engaging in all activities including industry, public transport, State trading to name only a few of them.
- In so far as the State activities have such wide ramifications involving not only the use of sovereign powers but also its powers as employers in so many public sectors.
- It is too much to claim that the State should be immune from the consequences of tortious acts of its employees committed in the course of their employment as such.”
- Supreme court − if the act of the Government servant was one which could be considered to be in delegation of sovereign powers, the State would be exempt from liability, otherwise not.
- The court held that the state would be liable for tort in respect of tortious act committed by its servants, within the scope of employment and functioning as such as any other employer.
