Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- By way of this common judgment, CWP No.12064 of 1994 and CWP No.2373 of 1995 shall be decided together as both these petitions have common substantial questions of law to be answered and have similarity of facts as also of attending circumstances. For convenience and clarity, facts of CWP No.12064 of 1994 are being narrated.

2. Petitioner Nazar Singh, during his employment as a driver with Punjab Roadways, Nangal Depot, Ropar, on 12.2.1985 was driving bus No.PBM-6964 bound from Ludhiana to Chandigarh. The bus had met with an accident in the area of village Mander. It was about 10.45 a.m. As a result of this accident, two persons sitting in the Matador with which the bus had struck had died on the spot, whereas two others had sustained injuries. Dependents of the deceased as also the injured had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ludhiana where inter-alia the petitioner was impleaded as one of the respondents.

3. Though stand of the petitioner as also his employer therein was that the accident had not been caused due to fault of the petitioner, the Tribunal disagreeing with said plea, vide Award dated 2.6.1986 had held negligence of the petitioner in driving the bus and had further held that the accident resulting in two deaths and rendering two others injured, was occasioned because of such negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner. The employer of the petitioner, pursuant to Award of the Tribunal had to pay an amount of Rs.3,10,427.95p.

4. Consequently, a show cause notice (Annexure P-1) was issued to the petitioner on 27.11.1992 calling him upon to explain as to why he should not be made to pay Rs.2,12,000/- with 9% interest. After reply (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, order of 24.2.1994 (Annexure P-3) was passed by the employer of the petitioner, ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.3,10,427.95p from the petitioner.

5. In reply (Annexure P-2) to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, liability to pay had been denied. Reference was also made to Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act).

In this writ petition, challenging the show cause notice (Annexure P-1) and order (Annexure P-3), when no written statement came from the respondents, interim order dated 1.9.1994 whereby impugned recovery as per order dated 24.2.1994 (Annexure P-3) from the petitioner had been stayed, was made absolute on 20.11.1996.

6. Stand of the petitioner-driver is that neither he was negligent nor rash in driving the bus and thus, was not responsible for the two deaths and injuries caused to two others in a motor vehicular accident. It is also claimed that the respondent taking shelter under provisions of Section 146 of the Act, had not got the bus insured but had not created any fund for payment of compensation to the victims or to the injured of any vehicular accident. In addition, it is also claimed that neither any opportunity of hearing was provided nor the liability was fixed on the petitioner as per procedure.

7. Stand of the respondents on the other hand is that the petitioner was held negligent in driving the bus which had caused the accident and that due to his negligence, the respondents had to pay a sum of Rs.3,10,427.95p, which the respondents have a right to recover from the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard while perusing the paper book.

9. Counsel for the petitioner relying on State of Maharashtra and others v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and others, (1995)5 SCC 659, has urged that not the petitioner but the respondents are liable to make payment of compensation to the victims of the accident. This authority is based on vicarious liability of an employer to third parties for negligence or fault of its employees acting in the course of employment. In this authority, a jeep belonging to the State Government had dashed against a scooter driven by the victim which had resulted in death of the vic