On requisitioning private vehicles for public purposes, authorities liable to pay compensation under MV Act: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court said when the district authorities requisitioned private vehicles along with drivers for election purposes, they would only be liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said, "When the State steps in, assumes control, and deploys the vehicle for its own purposes, it assumes with that control the corresponding responsibility."

"Further, when statutory power is exercised to requisition private property in the public interest, that power carries with it an obligation to answer for the consequences flowing from such compelled use. To hold otherwise would impose upon private parties and their insurers the burden of risks generated exclusively by governmental action," the bench said.

The court upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which directed the district magistrate to pay enhanced compensation of Rs 27,01,556 to the family members of deceased, Rajesh Mandil.

Mandil, riding a bike, was hit by a bus, requisitioned by the district magistrate, Gwalior for panchayat polls, though the bus was owned by a private school at the time of accident.

The bench examined the issue whether the high court’s finding that the district magistrate, a functionary of the State, would be liable to meet the award and not the insurance company, was in accordance with law or not.

Affirming the HC's order, the bench said, no error can be found in the judgment and as such, the appeal was bereft of merit.

In its judgment on March 23, 2026, the court said, once requisitioned, the vehicle is operated under official directions, the authority determines the manner of deployment, the purpose for which it is used, and the conditions under which it is operated. "The owner has no say in these matters."

"Where control is assumed by the State, the legal consequences arising from that control cannot, in fairness, be shifted back to a private insurer whose contractual engagement was premised on a wholly different footing. It is equally important to recognise that a requisition is not a voluntary arrangement, instead it is a command issued under statutory authority,'' the bench said.

In such circumstances, the court said, the owner does not consent to part with possession; he is compelled to do so. The insurance policy obtained by him envisions and accounts for the vehicle’s regular and lawful use in the ordinary course, it pointed out.

"Compelled deployment for public functions cannot reasonably be characterised as 'regular use' within the ‘usual’ contemplation. To fasten liability upon the insurer in these circumstances would be to extend the contract beyond the risk that was agreed to be covered. Requiring the insurer to answer for consequences arising from a use neither authorised nor controlled by the insured would be unfair,'' the bench said.

The court noted Section 160 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950 grants power to the State to requisition premises and vehicles. The provision, however, does not expressly authorise the requisition of manpower such as driver. In practice, however, vehicles are often placed at the disposal of the authorities along with their drivers, in view of operational convenience, it pointed out.

"It is a reasonable conclusion that by accepting and utilising the services of the driver, the authorities implicitly recognised such a driver’s competence, capacity and ability to operate the vehicle,'' the bench said.

The authority, in this case, made a conscious decision to requisition the vehicle with the driver instead of exercising its power to request staff for the purpose of carrying out duties in connection with the election.

"In other words while the vehicle could have been requisitioned from the school, the driver could have been a staff member of the authorities/institutions listed under Section 159(2) of the Act. However, that was not the case. Viewed thus too, the liability would rest with the requisitioning authority, and thereby with the State,'' the bench held.