Back
[2010(1) ADJ 377]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SABHAJEET YADAV, J.
VIRENDRA AMERIA .....Petitioner
Versus
REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JHANSI REGION, JHANSI AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24235 of 2009, decided on 16th December, 2009)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 146(1), 146(2), 146 (3) and 168—Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950—Section 27—Driver of U.P. Road Transport Corporation bus—Found negligent in driving bus, as he caused accident of that bus with Dumper Truck coming from opposite site, in which one passenger died—Accidents Tribunal directed Corporation to pay half of the awarded amount—Corporation issued notice to driver to pay that amount as he was driving bus negligently—Question, whether driver can be fastended with liability to indemnity loss caused to Corporation—Examined by High Court and found Corporation is not bound to pay that amount of award from its fund created under Section 27—As such, Section 27 has no relevance to this question—Examining Section 146 also, High Court found that driver of bus cannot be absolved from his liability and Corporation cannot be asked to indemnify loss from fund maintained under Section 146(3). [Paras 5 to 12 and 14 to 15]
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 140, 149(1), 163-A, 166 and 168—Proceedings for claim thereunder—Are summary in nature—As such, different approach is required to be adopted by Tribunal in disposal of that proceedings—Whereas in disciplinary proceedings against driver by Corporation for driving bus belonging to Corporation in negligent manner, another approach is required by employer-Corporation—As such both proceedings can be conducted simultaneously—Driver cannot be absolved from consequences of his negligent driving of Corporation’s bus—Several relevant aspects connected therewith—Examined and clarified—Direction of Corporation to driver to indemnify loss caused to Corporation by payment of awarded amount to claimants—Cannot be sustained as there exists no rule or office order in this regard. [Paras 35 to 40, 42 to 45, 47, 48, 52 and 53]
(D) Doctrine of Estoppel—Applicability—Accident caused by Corporation bus—Immediately after accident a Senior Officer of Corporation made enquiry and found that driver was not guilty for accident—In claim petition too, plea on behalf of Corporation taken in its W.S. was that driver was not negligent—But Claims Tribunal found that accident took due to negligent driving of driver—After this finding of Tribunal, Corporation’s action against driver—Not barred by Estoppel. [Paras 49 and 50]
Result; Order Accordingly.
Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of recovery dated 25.6.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 and sought further relief of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 25.6.2008 with interest of 12% per annum.
2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the petitioner while driving a bus of U.P.S.R.T.C. hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ in the night of 2nd and 3rd April, 1999 had met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Dumper Truck No. U.P.78 N 3879 coming from opposite side, resulting which a passenger namely Mohan Lal sitting in his bus had received injuries and ultimately died due to said injuries. Immediately after the said accident the Varistha Kendra Prabhari, U.P.S.R.T.C, Jhansi had inspected the spot in morning of 3rd April, 1999, and submitted a report regarding the aforesaid accident wherein he had very categorically held that the petitioner was not guilty of accident in question. A true copy of the said report is on record as Annexure-3 of the writ petition.
3. It is stated that after lapse of some time the dependents of Late Mohan Lal had filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi, in which owner and driver of the aforesaid Dumper Truck were also impleaded as opposite parties along with the petitioner and Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Jhansi. But the Corporation was not impleaded as opposite party. The said claim petition was registered as MAC Case No. 130 of 1999, Asha Ram and others v. Bhanu Prakash and others. In the said claim petition a written statement was filed by the respondent No. 2 on his behalf as well as on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner was not at all guilty of negligence leading to the said accident. The petitioner had also appeared before Claims Tribunal in the witness box and denied his negligence which could be said to have led the aforesaid accident. The aforesaid claim petition was ultimately allowed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/4th A.D.J., Jhansi vide its judgement and order dated 2.3.2001, whereby claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,81,500/- along with 8% simple interest per annum compensation to the claimants/dependents heirs of deceased passenger, out of which half of the money was liable to be paid by insurer of the Dumper truck, remaining half was to be paid by officer and employer of the Corporation. A copy of aforesaid judgement and award is on record as Annexure-8 of the writ petition.
4. It is further stated that the petitioner is poor driver and that is why his rights were being defended by the respondents in the said claim petition. He is not in a position to file an appeal against the aforesaid award whereas the corporation could and can file an appeal against the said award, but the respondent No. 1 had issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 19.5.2001 solely on the ground that the petitioner was negligently driving the bus involved in the said accident. By said notice the respondent No. 1 had asked the petitioner to show cause why the liability for payment of compensation arising out of judgement and award dated 2.3.2001 be not fastened with him. The petitioner had replied the said notice disputing his liability for payment of compensation arising out of award made in the said claim petition, but without properly appreciating the contentions raised by petitioner in his reply of show cause notice, the impugned order dated 25.6.2008 was passed by respondent No. 2, whereby half of the compensation to be paid to the heirs of late Mohan Lal is directed to be recovered from the petitioner, hence this petition.
5. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Anand Gaur, learned counsel for the Corporation. The order which I propose to pass in the writ petition I need not call for any counter-affidavit in the wr
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
