Vicarious liability is a form of secondary strict liability arises due to the commission or omission of others under the common law doctrine of agency "The Respondeat superior " in which the superior liable for their inferior in other words responsibility of any third party that had their control or ability to control . The liability is not only on the Tortfeasor but on someone who have duty to control on the tortfeasor.

Common form of vicarious liability is liability arising out of master sarvent relationship refered to the doctrine "Respondeat superior" The principal means that the master is jonitly liable for the tort comitted by servant in course of employment .

Clause (1) of article of 300 of the Constitution provides first that the government of India may sue or sued by the name of union of India and the government of state may be sue or sued by the name of the state . secondally that the government of India or the government of state may sue or be sued in the relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding provinces or the corresponding India 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 provisons.

It was impossible by the reason of maxim "The king can do no wrong" to sue the crown for the Tortious act of its servant But it was realized in the United Kingdom that that had rule became outmoded in the context of modern development in statecraft and parliament intervened by enacting the crown proceeding Act, 1947 which came into force on January1,1948 Hence the very citedal of the absolute rule of immunity of the sovereign has now been blown up. Section 2(1) of the act provides that the crown shall be subject to all those liabliti. in tort to which it would be subject if the other provisions of this act.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability is a tortitous liability, imposed on employer tort comitted by the employee. It is an extereme form of strict liability , where a person is liable even through he is not a tortfeasor. there are three main requirements to establish vicarious liability:

1. Tortfeasor is an employee
2. Commits the tort in course of employment
3. Tort is committed

Who is an employee:

The oldest test to determine who is an employee is the control test and the test is wheather the master has a right to control what was done and the way in which it was done via system vs Thermal transfer where he claimant contracted with the first defendant (D1) to install air condition.

D1 sub contracted with second defandant (D2) to carry out ducting work, D2 then hired D3 to do the fitting. Due to negligence on the part of D3 damage was done to the property . The court was called upon to determine whether it is D1 or D2 that is liable for the negligence of D3.

Held:
In reaching this decision may LJ held that the court should concentrate on whose responsiblity it was to prevent the breach and not whether there was a transfer of employment , which would depend on who has the power to give orders and tell D3 how he carry out his work. On this basis the court found D2 and D3 jointly and vicariously liable for the negligence.

Applying the civil liablities (Contribution) Act 1978 the court held that the respective liablity of D2 and D3 are equal. therefore they are ordered to pay 50% each.

Sovereign Immunity

The legal doctorine of sovereign Immunity holds the state or sovereign' can commit no legal wrong and is immune from civil suits and criminal prosecution. It is derived from the British common law principal, "Rex nonpotest peccare " Which means that "The king can do no wrong"

In Maneka Gandhi v/s Union Of India , the high court held that since the statutory concept of sovereign immunity could not be Override the constitutional provisons , the claim for violation of fundamental rights could not be violate by statutory immunities On appeal by the state , the supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled.

The maxim that king can do no wrong or that the crown is not answerable in tort has no place in Indian jurisprudence where the power vests , not in the crown , but in the people who elect their representatives to run the government. which has to act in accordance with provisons of the Constitution and would be answerable to the people for any violation thereof .

Since time immemorial man has been attempting to subjugate his fellow human beings Those in power are used to twisting and turning the people through violence and torture , and torture under custody has become a gobal phenomenon.

This provison of immunity is important for the public servants and judicial officers Considering the nature of their duties and to protect them from the false allegations induced upon them from the acts done by them under the authority of the law . but instead , Grave human rights abuses occurs because officers have little reason to fear any legal consequence and this public officials are able to crush , dissent , and abrogate the rule of law in name of sovereign duty .

De Facto creates a framework of impunity that condones violations of human right and it is important to recognise that this provison affects not only citizen's fundamental rights, but also society as a whole , thereby damaging democracy.

section 197 of crpc states that, when any person who is or was a judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanctions of government is accused of any offence alleged to have been comitted by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his officials duty , no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction.

Here, the word " during the discharge of officials duty "becomes utmost important. The scope of 197 was summned up by the supreme Court in Matajong Dobey vs HC.

Under the English Evolved law, the saying was "The Ruler can do no wrong" and so, the Ruler was freed from responsibility for the wrongs of allure attendants. But, in England, the position outdated Evolved law saying has happened exchanged by the Crown Procedures Act, 1947. Former, the Ruler commit not be sued in crime either for wrong actually approved by it or dedicated by allure assistants, concurrently with an activity employment.

Accompanying the growing functions of State, sovereignty Procedures Act had existed passed, immediately sovereignty is open for a crime dedicated by its assistants just like a private individual. Likewise, in Western hemisphere, the Combined Torts Claims Act,1946 supplies the principles, that essentially ends the question of burden of State.

Position of vicarious liability in acts of police officials

Under the English Evolved law, the saying was "The Ruler can do no wrong" and so, the Ruler was freed from responsibility for the wrongs of allure attendants. But, in England, the position outdated Evolved law saying has happened exchanged by the Crown Procedures Act, 1947. Former, the Ruler commit not be sued in crime either for wrong actually approved by it or dedicated by allure assistants, concurrently with an activity employment.

Accompanying the growing functions of State, sovereignty Procedures Act had existed passed, immediately sovereignty is open for a crime dedicated by its assistants just like a private individual. Likewise, in Western hemisphere, the Combined Torts Claims Act,1946 supplies the principles, that essentially ends the question of burden of State.

Case related to vicarious liability of state in acts of police officials:

Gopal Gangaram Kothavale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 March, 2005

The highest court of law has not conventional the print fatigued by DILR bestowing exact calculations. The distance proved in the pronounced outline has existed noticed afterwards literally communicable calculations but the alike was not established apiece highest court of law on the ground that that outline was tense 15 months following in position or time the occurrence ambiguous and, so, the exact position or area place the dead frames were establish keep not have happened situated.

This is inspite of the experience that patrolman PW 16, the one was present concurrently with an activity of illustration of the spot panchanama. and the one was more resting skilled all the while the midnight occasion of the occurrence protecting the mortal remains of Remi and place of occurrence, was present . when the DILR deputy had happened to the spot for illustration the plan and copy of the spot panchanama was created accessible to the DILR deputy to experience the neighborhoods place the dead carcasses were raise.

Even the blamed were present before. In this place respect confidence was established for someone the pursuit on day of reckoning of the Highest federal court in the case of Santa claus Singh v. State of Punjab. In the pronounced doom it was grasped that if the draftsman is requested to gird a sketch plan of the place of incident, and if later verifying from the witnesses place particularly the attacker.

And the fatality endured concurrently with an activity of the commission of the offence and the draftsman measures the distance middle from two points two together places and prepares the plan aforementioned plan concede possibility be relied in the Court a suggestion of choice another plan adapted apiece Lawman Substitute Examiner.On account of plan the distance proved betwixt the families of the blamed and the place of offence is about 838 extremities.

It wealth the pronounced distance is proved following in position or time attractive real calculations. As against that the highest court of law has chosen to go for one approximate distance of 400 ft. noticed in the spot panchanama for one lawman. Even the witnesses have likely various distances in their evidence that is noticed in the depositions as approximate distances.

Few of the witnesses have likely distance of 550 ft. betwixt the apartments of the blamed and the place of offence but either the distance 'tween the apartments of the blamed and the place of occurrence is 400 ft. or 800 ft. would create no various. It is not debatable that from the buildings of the blamed the horizon of hissa Rejection. 3 and 3 is about 50 ft. continuously

Conclusion
In this research project we have explored the concept of for tortious liabilities. Case laws like Rookes v. Barnard was taken into consideration to the understand the scope of awarding exemplary damages in the law of torts. The BMW v. Gore case laid down three guidelines for the computation of exemplary damages.

In India the Uphaar case showcases the apprehension of the Supreme Court to award exemplary damages in torts and the quantum of punishment awarded in this case was absent of the reprehensibility factor that was proposed in the BMW v. Gore case. The thumb rule exemplified by the Delhi High court in the Koninlijke case offers a solution to the uncertainity in the award of damages in the law of torts.

The 3rd and the 4th rule of the chart that was prepared by the judges can be uniformly used for all kinds of tortious liabilities and the judgement declares that the thumb rule are not static and can be altered accordingly by the judges. We also considered applying the investment and the multiplication rule for the computation of damages but although these rules offer some form of benefits in the computation of exemplary damages, they have significant disadvantages and therefore cannot be considered a reliable method for the purpose of calculation of damages.

We also evaluated the treble damages in detail and while the rule offers predictability, its very nature goes against the principles that were explored in the Grimshaw v. Ford Motors case and can therefore not be considered as an efficient method of computing damages in the law of torts.

It is advisable for the courts to use the thumb rule propounded in the Koninlijke case for the calculation for exemplary damages in the law of torts. The courts should also take into consideration the three guidelines laid down in the BMW v. Gore case while computing the damages, the awards should not be arbitrary so as to go against the public policy and it should not be low enough to not be considered adequate to serve the purpose of justice.