Page |1

Subject – LAW OF TORTS

TOPIC – AIR 1994 A.P. 21

Supervised By:

NAME: RAJJAK HOSSEN

ROLL NO.: 55
COURSE: B.A.LL.B- 1ST SEMESTER
 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With profound gratitude and sense of indebtedness I place on record my sincerest thanks to

our class teacher, Indian Institute of Legal Studies, for his/her invaluable guidance, sound

advice and affectionate attitude during the course of my studies.

I have no hesitation in saying that he/she molded raw clay into whatever I am through his/her

incessant efforts and keen interest shown throughout my academic pursuit. It is due to his/her

patient guidance that I have been able to complete the task.

I would also thank the Indian institute of Legal Studies Library for the wealth of information

therein. I also express my regards to the Library staff for cooperating and making available

the books for this project research paper.

Finally, I thank my beloved parents for supporting me morally and guiding me throughout the

project work.

Date: _____________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Page |3

__________________________________________________________
Research Methodology
A. Aims and Objectives…………………………………..…………………………………………6
B. Statement of Problem…………………………………………….………………………………6
C. Hypothesis …………………………………………..…………………………………………...6
D. Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………………...6
E. Method of Research…………………….….………….…………………………………………5
F. Limitation………………………………………………………………………………...............5
G. Literature………………………………………………………………………………………...5
H. Mode of Citation………………………………………….……………………………………..5

Table of Cases……………………………………………………………….….…………………..….6
Chapter – I
1.1Introduction………………………………..…………………..…………….………………………7
1.2 vicarious liability………………………………………………………………………….8
1.3 3Constituents Of Vicarious Liability…………………………………………………….8
1.4 Vicarious Liability of the State:………………………………………………………….8
Chapter=2
2.1 case study……………………………………………...…………………………………10
2.2 conclusion…………………………………………………..……………………………14

Reference and bibliography

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 Page |4

___________________________________________________________

A. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aims and objectives of this project are to understand the concepts of Red Cross society,
the purpose of having provisions which gives inclusive concept of law is a byproduct of
intensive form of government comment. One of the aims of the project is to have a
comparative study on the topic; concept of social work with respect of law is a byproduct of
intensive form of government comment in India.

B. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Despite the laws and Acts, the current systems do not give an equal chance to access and
flourish. Though we have various Laws and Statutes yet essential things are missed out and
very few literates know the proper meaning and nature of law of crime is a byproduct of
intensive form of government comment. As such many of us are still in dark as to what
includes the term Assets on which Administrative law is a byproduct of intensive form of
government comment is to be computed and how to compute the same.

C. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

This research work is an attempt to distill lessons from the concept of law is a byproduct of
intensive form of government comment. It is an attempt to know the concept of various
terminologies within the concept of law is a byproduct of intensive form of government
comment and how they are very much needed in our present soceity.

D. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Based on the statement of problem and research hypothesis aforementioned, the following
research questions have been formulated:

E. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH
 Page |5

“Methodology” implies more than simply the methods the researcher used to collect data. It
is often necessary to include a consideration of the concepts and theories which underlie the
methods. The methodology opted for the study on the topic is Empirical and little doctrainal in
nature. Empirical research in law field indicates arranging, ordering and analysis of the legal
structure, legal frame work and case laws by extensive surveying of legal literature but with
field work.

F. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The research work discusses the key points that the Learned Court observed as well as what
is deduced after going through the research work. Case study topic being very vast like
ocean, the work is limited to the project topic.

G. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The researcher while writing this project has taken recourse to various primary and secondary
sources. Primary sources would include various laws, books and articles. Secondary sources
would include reports and websites.

H. MODE OF CITATION

A uniform Blue Book Mode of citation has been adopted throughout the project.

TABLE OF CASES
 Page |6

 Tamil Nadu NGO Union vs Registrar, Trade Unions, AIR 1962

 GTRTCS and Officer's Association, Bangalore and others vs Asst. Labor

Commissioner and anothers AIR 2002, Kar. HC 

 Road Transport Corporations Workers’ Union v. A.P.S.R.T. Corporation,

2001 LLR 82 (AP).

 Tata Workers' Union And Ors. (Appellants) V State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

CHAPTER – I: INTRODUCTION

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common

law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of
their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the
 Page |7

"right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished

from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in
the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is
not an element of vicarious liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships
by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the
wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is
that of employer and employee.

Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or

omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope
and course of employment').To determine whether the employer is liable, the difference
between an independent contractor and an employee is to be drawn. In order to be vicariously
liable, there must be a requisite relationship between the defendant the tortfeasor, which
could be examined by three tests: Control test, Organisation test and Sufficient relationship
test. An employer may be held liable under principles of vicarious liability if an employee
does an authorized act in an unauthorized way.

Employers may also be liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin

phrase, qui facit per alium facit per se (one who acts through another acts in one's own
interests). That is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability, in which one
person is held liable in criminal law or tort for the acts or omissions of another.

In Australia, the 'sufficient relationship' test entails the balancing of several factors such as
skill levels required in the job, pay schemes, and degree of control granted to the worker, has
been favoured approach. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it
must either be authorized or be so connected with an authorized act that it can be considered
a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it.

Courts sometimes distinguish between an employee's "detour" vs. "a frolic of their own". For
instance, an employer will be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere
detour in carrying out their duties, such as stopping to buy a beverage or use an ATM
machine while running a work-related errand, whereas an employee acting in his or her own
right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the
employer to liability.

1.2Vicarious Liability:
 Page |8

Generally, a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and one does not incur any liability for
the acts done by others. In certain cases, however, vicarious liability, that is the liability of
one person for the act of another person, may arise. In order that the liability of A for the act
done by B can arise, it is necessary that there should be certain kind of relationship between
A and B, and the wrongful act should be, in certain way, connected with that relationship.

The common examples of such a liability are: .

(1) Liability of the principal for the tort of his agent;
(2) Liability of partners of each other’s tort;
(3) Liability of the master for the tort of his servant.
So Vicarious Liability deals with cases where one person is liable for the acts of others. In the
field of Torts it is considered to be an exception to the general rule that a person is liable for
his own acts only. It is based on the principle of qui facit per se per alium facit per se, which
means, “He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself”. So in a case
of vicarious liability both the person at whose behest the act is done as well as the person who
does the act are liable. Thus, Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees
that are committed during the course of employment.
1.3Constituents Of Vicarious Liability .
So the constituents of vicarious liability are :
(1) There must be a relationship of a certain kind .
(2) The wrongful act must be related to the relationship in a certain way

(3) The wrong has been done within the course of employment.

1.4Vicarious Liability of the State:

The term ‘administration’ is used here synonymously with ‘state’ or ‘Government’. To what
extend the administration would be liable for the torts committed by its servants is a complex
problem especially in developing countries with ever widening State activities. The liability
of the government in tort is governed by the principles of public law inherited from British
Common law and the provisions of the Constitution. The whole idea of Vicariously Liability
of the State for the torts committed by its servants is based on three principles:

 Respondeat superior (let the principal be liable).

 Page |9

 Quifacit per alium facit per se (he who acts through another does it himself).
 Socialisation of Compensation.

Position in England: Under the English Common Law the maxim was “The King can do no
wrong” and therefore, the King was not liable for the wrongs of its servants. But, in England
the position of old Common law maxim has been changed by the Crown Proceedings Act,
1947. Earlier, the King could not be sued in tort either for wrong actually authorised by it or
committed by its servants, in the course of employment. With the increasing functions of
State, the Crown Proceedings Act had been passed, now the crown is liable for a tort
committed by its servants just like a private individual. Similarly, in America, the Federal
Torts Claims Act,1946 provides the principles, which substantially decides the question of
liability of State.

Position in India: Unlike Crown Proceedings Act, 1947(England), we do not have any

statutory provisions mentioning the liability of the State in India. The law in India with
respect to the liability of the State for the tortious acts of its servants has become entangled
with the nature and character of the role of the East India Company prior to 1858. It is
therefore necessary to trace the course of development of the law on this subject, as contained
in article 300 of the Constitution. The position of State liability as stated in Article 300 of the
Constitution is as under: Clause (1) of Article 300 of the Constitution provides first, that the
Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India and the
Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State; secondly, that the
Government of India or the Government of a State may sue or be sued in relation to their
respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces
or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or be sued, “if this Constitution had not
been enacted”, and thirdly, that the second mentioned rule shall be subject to any provisions
which may be made by an Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State, enacted by
virtue of powers conferred by the Constitution.

Consequently, one has to uncover the extend of liability of the East India Company in order
to understand the liability parameters of the administration today because the liability of the
administration today is in direct succession to that of the East India Company. The East India
Company launched its career in India as a purely commercial corporation but gradually
acquired sovereignty. Therefore, in the beginning, the company did not enjoy the immunity
 P a g e | 10

of the Crown. It was only when it acquired political powers that a distinction was made
between sovereign and non- sovereign functions.

Chapter=2

2.1Case study

Pagadala Narasimham
vs
Commissioner And Special officer,Nellore Mubicipality
Citation: AIR1994 ANDHRA PRADESH 21
Appellant: Pagadala Narasimham
Respondent: Commissioner And Special officer,Nellore Mubicipality
Judge: P.Venkatarama Reddi.J.

Facts:

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff as
an indigent person. The said suit O.S. No. 30 of 1980 (on the file of the Additional District
Judge, Nellore) was filed claiming damages of Rs. 50,000/- against the defendant Nos. 1 and
2, viz., the Commissioner and Special Officer of Nellore Municipality and the Superintendent
of Police, Nellore. The 3rd defendant, viz., the Nellore Finance Corporation was impleaded
later on and it is not a party in this appeal. The suit was filed on the allegations that the
plaintiff was the owner of the bus APA 8320 and while it was kept for repairs near the
workshop at Santi Reddy Road, Nellore, the Municipal and the Police Officials removed the
same on the evening of 14.7.1976 on the ground that it was causing obstruction on the public
road and kept it in the compound of the Collectorate Building near the Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate's Court. It is the case of the plaintiff that when he approached the
Municipal Officials for the release of the vehicle they advised him to contact the Traffic
Police Officials and when he approached the concerned Police Station, he was directed to
contact the Municipal Authorities. No case was filed and, therefore he had no opportunity to
get the vehicle released from the Court. The Regional Transport Authority cancelled the
permit on 13.4.1977 in view of his inability to put the bus on the route. The bus was under
 P a g e | 11

hire-purchase agreement with the 3rd defendant Corporation. The 3rd defendant who is the
financier of the bus impleaded only and got the vehicle auctioned for Rs. 10,920/-. The
plaintiff estimated the damages caused on account of the illegal seizure and detention of the
bus at Rs. 50,000/- on various counts. The defendants have taken the stand that the suit itself
was not maintainable for failure to implead the proper parties. The 1st defendant municipality
had denied the seizure of the vehicle. The municipality contended that on the request of the
Town Traffic Sub-Inspector, the municipal tractor and coolies were sent for assisting him in
the removal of the vehicle which was causing obstruction on the public road. The 1st
defendant denied that any petition was filed or representation made by the plaintiff for the
release of the vehicle. The 2nd defend ant denied the knowledge of removal of the plaintiff's
buson 14.7.1976. He went to the extent of denying the factum of giving assistance by the
municipality in connection with the removal of the vehicle. He also denied that the plaintiff
approached Town Police Station for the release of the vehicle. The 2nd defendant went on to
say in the written statement that the Municipal Authorities appear to have removed the
vehicle as it was causing inconvenience to the public. Itwaskept in the premises of the
Collector's office near the Magistrate's Court. It was not seized by any authority whatsoever.
It was merely removed from the public road as it was an obstruction to the traffic and the
same was kept at the Collector's office building. The plaintiff was always at liberty to take
custody of the saidvehicle. The 2nd defendant denied that any request was made by the
Traffic Sub-Inspector to the Municipal Authorities to send the tractor and coolies for the
removal of obstruction. The 2nd defendant then blamed the plaintiff for not taking necessary
steps for the release of the vehicle and allowing it to remain in the Collector's office
compound for such a long time. He also contended that in the absence of notice under Section
53 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) District Police Act, the suit was not maintainable. It was also
contended that the suit for damages against the police officials who are discharging sovereign
functions of the State was not maintainable.

2. The learned Additional District Judge, on a consideration of the evidence and the
probabilities, gave the following findings: (1) The suit is not maintainable against the 1st
defendant and the suit should have been filed against the Municipal Council, Nellore,
represented by the Commissioner and Special Officer, Nellore. (2) The suit is not
maintainable against the 2nd defendant as well in view of the provisions of Sections 79 and
80, Civil Procedure Code. If a suit has to be filed alleging tortious acts against the Police
Officials in the course of discharge of their duties and for recovery of damages, the State of
 P a g e | 12

Andhra Pradesh should have been impleaded as a necessary party. Similarly, a notice under
Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, should also have been issued to the State of Andhra
Pradesh. Superintendent of Police cannot, therefore, be sued for the tortious acts, if any, of
his subordinates. (3) The removal of bus causing obstruction to traffic by the police or even
by the employees of the municipality cannot be regarded as a wrongful act or an act
committed in excess of their powers and functions. (4) The bus was removed by the Traffic
Police with the help of the Municipal employees on their own accord. When the bus was
removed, mere was no engine to the bus and it was not in working condition. (5) The plaintiff
was not the owner of the bus buthe was a hirer having possession of the vehicle. (6) The
plaintiff did not take any effective steps for getting back the vehicle knowing fully well that it
was kept in the compound of the Collector, exposed to sun and rain. It was only on 6.5.1977
that the plaintiff gave Exh. A-1 notice to the 1st defendant. (7) The suit for damages either
against Superintendent of Police, 2nd defendant, or against the State of Andhra Pradesh is not
maintainable inasmuch as the alleged tortious act was committed in discharge of statutory
functions traceable to the sovereign power of the State. The suit for damages was, therefore,
dismissed.

Issue :

The learned Counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Jayasree Samathy, has contended that the lower
Court fell into an error in dismissing the suit on technical grounds such as that the correct
description of the defendant municipality was not given. The learned Counsel further
contended that the 1st and the 2nd defendants went on shifting the responsibility to each other
and the 2nd defendant came forward with evasive written statement. She has also brought to
my notice that an application in C.M.p. No. 10890 of 1983 was filed to change the case-title
of the 1st respondent as "Nellore Municipal Council represented by the Special Officer." She
submitted that in view of the failure of the 1st and 2nd defendants in (Sic.) filing a case in the
Court and unauthorisedly detaining the vehicle loss was caused to the plaintiff and it is a fit
case where damages should be awarded. She also contended that the mere fact that the
vehicle was under hire-purchase agreement and the position of the plaintiff was that of a hirer
and that the bus was not in working condition at that point of time are not relevant
circumstances which should have been taken into account.

4. I do not think(Sic) can uphold the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
Apart from anything else, there is one formidable obstacle in the way of the plaintiff-
 P a g e | 13

appellant. The finding of the lower Court is that the traffic police removed the vehicle as it
was kept on the public road causing obstruction to the traffic. According to the learned
Additional Judge, the municipal employees have only played a secondary role in extending
their help to the police. For arriving at this finding the lower Court relied upon various
circumstances and probabilities. These are: (1) A charge-sheet was filed by the police against
a driver of the lorry which vehicle was kept behind the bus. (2) DW 2, the Traffic Sub-
Inspector's version that no prosecution could be launched against the driver of the bus as he
could not know the number of the bus and the name of the owner was unconvincing. (3)
There is nothing unnatural in the contention of the 1st defendant that the traffic police in
order to remove the vehicle kept on the public road requested the Commissioner to send some
workers and tractor for removing them. (4) Had the bus been removed by the municipality on
its initiation, the bus would have been taken to its own premises but not to the premises of the
Collectorate compound. In arriving at all these findings, the learned Judge considered the
evidence of PWs 1 and 2 though a feeble attempt has been made to challenge these findings, I
do not see any substantial ground to upset the finding reached by the lower Court. I would
like to add that even the vague and evasive written statement filed by 2nd defendant would
give an indication that it was the traffic police that took the initiation to remove the vehicle
by taking the help of the municipality. It is unfortunate, as rightly observed by the learned
Additional District Judge, that the 2nd defendant who filed a written statement made a bald
denial of everything and shifted the responsibility to the municipal officials. But the fact
remains that the vehicle which stood on the public road was causing obstruction to the traffic.
The police assisted by the municipal employees were, therefore, legally justified in removing
the vehicle. If, on account of subsequent inaction in filing the case or in detaining the vehicle
in the Collectorate compound, the plaintiff was aggrieved, he could have taken effective steps
for seeking release of the vehicle. Excepting the oral assertion on the part of the plaintiff,
there is no evidence of making a representation or approaching the authorities for the release
of the vehicle. Probably it suited the plaintiff to allow the vehicle to remain in the custody of
the Police Officials, though it is not possible to give a definite finding on this aspect. Be that
as it may, if the plaintiff's bus was wrongly detained by the police, the proper course, if at all,
open to the plaintiff was to sue the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary to
Government or the District Collector, as the case may be. The procedure contemplated by
Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code has been given a go-by in the instant case. Even the
notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was not sent to the authorities as
 P a g e | 14

contemplated under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, but it was sent to the 2nd defendant.
Even on the admitted or, at any rate, undisputed facts, the alleged wrongful act done by the
subordinates of the 2nd defendant was in the discharge of their official duties traceable to the
sovereign functions of the State. 

Judgment:

If any pecuniary liability has to be fastened in relation to such an act and the amount has to be
recovered, it could only be from the State of Andhra Pradesh. No decree can be passed or
enforced against the Superintendent of Police. 
The Supreme Court referred to the provisions of Sections 79 and 80, Civil Procedure Code
and Article 300 of the Constitution. The ratio of the said judgment fully applies to the present
case. The failure to bring the suit against the State of Andhra Pradesh is fatal to the case and
even assuming that the damages were recoverable by reason of the alleged illegal act
committed by the subordinates of the 2nd defendant, such claim could only be made against
the State of Andhra Pradesh after issuing due notice required by Section 80, Civil Procedure
Code. This mandatory and fundamental requirement has not been satisfied in the instant case.
The lower Court is, therefore, justified in dismissing the suit. I see no merit in the appeal and
it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, especially in view of the
unreasonable stand taken by the 2nd defendant, I make no order as to costs.

2.2Conclusion
Vicarious Liability deals with cases where one person is liable for the acts of others. In the
field of Torts it is considered to be an exception to the general rule that a person is liable for
his own acts only. It is based on the principle of qui facit per se per alium facit per se, which
means, “He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself”. So in a case
of vicarious liability both the person at whose behest the act is done as well as the person who
does the act are liable. Thus, Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees
that are committed during the course of employment. In order that the liability of A for the
act done by B can arise, it is necessary that there should be certain kind of relationship
between A and B, and the wrongful act should be, in certain way, connected with that
relationship. So a master is liable for the acts of his servant if the act is done in the course of
employment. But where someone employs an independent contractor to do work on his
behalf he is not in the ordinary way responsible for any tort committed by the contractor in
 P a g e | 15

the course of the execution of the work except in certain exceptional cases as dealt above.

So the servant and independent contractor are under contract of service and contract for
service respectively. The traditional view to distinguish between the two was the control test
exclusively. But in modern scenario this is not sufficient test as there is no single test. The
significant outcome can be achieved only by balancing different factors with the help of
different tests like: The nature of the employment test, the ‘integral part of the business’ test,
Allocation of financial risk/ the economic reality test/ multiple tests along with the control
test.

In assessing whether an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his employees,
several factors must be considered. Firstly, is the worker an employee or an independent
contractor. Then one must consider whether the employee was operating within the course of
his employment. In answering this, the nature of his act, as well as the timing must be
considered. Vicarious liability exists to ensure that employers shoulder the financial burden
of negligence claims which they are better equipped to handle than individual workers.

In brief, C should sue A and both A and B should compensate C for his medical treatments
and repair fees of his car. In this case, C has high chances to win this case and the outcome of
the results would be in his favor that should he decides to bring the case to the court. Lastly,
as for A and B, both the defendants have to settle by paying compensation to C in the
judgment be in his favor.

Bibliography

Books:

 Law of torts
 P a g e | 16

-Dr. R.K.Bangia

Web Sources

 https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/what-is-vicarious-
liability-contract-law-essay.php
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1052177/
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/vicarious-liability-in-india-
1634-1.html