JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the driver of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) Truck bearing No. DL-lGC-1424 (TATA) (‘offending vehicle’) challenging the judgment dated 25th January 2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South West District, Dwarka Courts [‘MACT/Tribunal’], in MACT No.747/2016.

2. The accident took place on 18th December 2014, resulting in death of Sujeet Kumar. The claim was filed by Sangeeta Verma (wife of deceased) and other legal heirs of deceased Sujeet Kumar, who was 26 years old at the time of the accident and was employed in private job as a ‘service technician’. On that day, at about 09:30 a.m., Sujeet Kumar was going towards Dwarka on his motorcycle. When he reached near Shiksha Bharti School, Dwarka, the offending vehicle, driven by appellant, hit the motorcycle from behind due to which he sustained fatal injuries. The appellant fled from the spot. Sujeet Kumar was taken to Rockland Hospital, Sector 12, Dwarka where he was declared brought dead.

3. FIR No.834/2014 was registered at PS Dwarka (South). The MACT concluded that Sujeet Kumar died as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the appellant/driver. Compensation was awarded at Rs.22,05,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

4. The appellant/driver has challenged the apportionment of liability, which was fastened jointly and severally upon the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’).

5. Mr. Shafiq Khan, counsel for appellant, seeks to argue against the liability fastened upon appellant and stated that liability to pay entire compensation ought to have been fastened on the MCD, being employer of appellant and the offending vehicle was being driven during the course of employment. He relies upon Section 146(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), read with the principles of vicarious liability, and also upon the decision of a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Shekhu & Ors., 2004 SCC OnLine Raj 131 where this aspect was discussed in detail.

6. Section 146 MV Act, on which counsel for appellant places reliance, reads as under:

“146. Necessity for insurance against third party risks.—(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force, in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter:

Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy in force as is required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for purposes not connected with any commercial enterprise.

(3) The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt from the operation of sub-section (1), any vehicle owned by any of the following authorities, namely:—

(a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the vehicle is used for purposes connected with any commercial enterprise;

(b) any local authority;

(c) any State Transport Undertaking:

Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any such authority unless a fund has been established and is maintained by that authority in such manner as may be prescribed by appropriate Government.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “appropriate Government” mean