The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation had the legal right to recover the liability from Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity as per R.3 of Part III KSR, as the liabilities had already been fixed by properly constituted Tribunals within the statutory time prescribed by the rule.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Question that has come up for consideration in all these cases is as to whether the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has got power to withhold Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity amount so as to meet the liability of the employees or pensioners pertaining to the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.

2. Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are awarding large amounts by way of compensation against the Corporation and their drivers, in respect of the accidents occurred due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of the Corporation. Several awards are being passed making the Corporation as well as the drivers jointly and severally liable to compensate the victims. In some awards drivers are directly made liable to pay the compensation and the Corporation vicariously. In many of the awards-, there are clear findings to the effect that drivers are rash and negligent which led to the claim being allowed, and even then the Corporation was constrained to satisfy those awards causing considerable financial strain.

3. In fact, the loss caused to the Corporation due to rash and negligent driving of their drivers came up for serious comments by a Division Bench of this Court in Jacob Eapen v. K.S.R.T.C. (1987 (1) KLT 219). Relevant portion is extracted below:

"There is one disturbing aspect revealed in the case, and we are constrained to comment on it in view of its serious implications. Rash and negligent driving has been the cause of grave suffering and misery to the appellant and loss to the K.S.R.T.C. Cases have come to our judicial notice where death, misery and deprivation have been caused due to the callous negligent exhibited by drivers of buses. We are not certain whether any action is taken against such negligent drivers, but we are certain that any commercial utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants put the undertaking to huge losses and passengers and pedestrians and users of other vehicles in peril. It behaves not a public sector undertaking to be public hazard of distressing dimensions. To contain this, K.S.R.T.C. should instill the right perspective and attitudes in their employees so that they realise their public accountability and pay heed to safety. If provisions in this regard do not exist, time has come to bring into existence. A unit to oversee the functioning of drivers, periodical assessment of performance and the use of mechanical devices can be thought of. We expect that the KSRTC will take necessary action in this regard without losing time."

In another decision in Vavachan v. K.S.R.T.C. (1991 (1) KLT 828), a learned single judge of this Court observed as follows:

"Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals seem to think that only KSRTC is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. However, awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking... If the liability of the drivers are fixed, where they ought to be, Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them, and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals require updating of realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the State and the KSRTC will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore."

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in most of the award h