LAWS(MPH)-2015-6-16

DAL CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On June 29, 2015
DAL CHAND SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since commonality of issues are involved in these matters, on the joint request, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) In the claim case, the State Government was made party by the said claimant. Shri Alok Sharma submits that petitioner was on official duty and was performing election duty on the date of accident. Hence, no liability could be imposed on the petitioner on account of accident caused by official Government vehicle. The said vehicle was under acquisition by respondent No. 3 for election work. He submits that the State Government or Election Commission can be held liable for damages and said compensation cannot be fastened on the petitioner. It is submitted that the Tribunal passed the award on 28.10.2013 (Annexure P-3). It determined the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,58,100/- with 8% interest from 10.12.2010 till date of realization. The liability was fixed on the State Government being owner of the vehicle. The said liability is fastened to respondent No. 3. Award was duly forwarded for information to the State authorities. The information of Government Advocate (Annexure P-5) was also sought for. By communication dated 5.12.2013, the respondent asked for permission to file appeal against the said award.

(3.) Shri Alok Sharma submits that impugned order dated 20.12.2013 (Annexure P-1) came as a bolt from blue to the petitioner, whereby it is directed that 70% of the award amount be recovered with interest from the petitioner. This comes to Rs. 4,60,670/- with 8% interest. This order is called in question on the ground that the said order is passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Secondly, the principle of vicarious liability will be applicable and, therefore, the State Government/Department should pay the compensation. Reliance is also placed on the provision of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is contended that without holding any enquiry, aforesaid amount cannot be recovered.