CHANCHAL DEVI Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who are legal representatives of deceased -Inder Kumar who was a Driver with the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, have approached this Court praying for quashing the show cause notice dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure P -5) vide which petitioner No. 1 was directed to deposit Rs. 82,800/ - to pay the decree -holder as per the enhanced amount of compensation ordered by the Appellate Court, order dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P -6) vide which recovery of advanced amount of Rs. 1,25,116/ - (Rs. 82,800/ - + Rs. 42,316/ -) given to the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Ambala, and order dated 02.04.2012 [Annexure P -6(1)] vide which the said amount was being sought to be recovered from the salary of the deceased -Inder Kumar Driver. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are legal representatives of Inder Kumar who joined the service of the Co -operative Societies in the year 1981 as a Driver. An accident took place while said Inder Kumar was driving his vehicle which led to filing of Motor Accident Claim Petition by one Shri Angrej Singh which was decided on 15.03.1999 holding the husband of petitioner No. 1 and respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 as jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 1,22,200/ - alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. An amount which the husband of petitioner No. 1 was required to pay was deducted from his salary and death -cum -retirement gratuity. Inder Kumar (husband of petitioner No. 1) passed away on 21.04.2008. Thereafter, on an appeal preferred by Shri Angrej Singh, the compensation amount was enhanced and thus, proportionate liability of Rs. 82,800/ - + Rs. 42,316/ - total comes to Rs. 1,25,116/ - was sought to be recovered from the petitioners who are the legal representatives of Inder Kumar. Counsel contends that he assails in the present writ petition the action of the respondents qua the recovery, of this amount only for the reason that the petitioners cannot be held liable now at this belated stage and it would not be in the interest of equity and justice that the estate of the petitioners be put to burden.

(2.) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondents do not dispute the fact that the initial amount of the award was duly deducted from the salary and death -cum -retirement gratuity of the deceased -Inder Kumar Driver. They, however, contend that since the liability of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and the respondents was joint and several and in the departmental enquiry, husband of the petitioner No. 1 has been held liable, the recovery which is now sought to be made from the husband of the petitioner No. 1 will ultimately have to be paid by the petitioners after death of Inder Kumar which is in accordance with law.

(3.) THE amount of recovery which has already been effected from the husband of the petitioner Inder Kumar is not disputed. In the departmental enquiry which was initiated against the husband of petitioner No. 1, an amount of Rs. 1,50,306/ - was found to be recoverable from the husband of the petitioner No. 1 which has been duly recovered by the respondents. That order of recovery cannot be, now, used as a tool to recover the amount which has been now enhanced by the Appellate Court in the FOA No. 1880 of 1999, titled as 'Angrej Singh v. Jagdish Chander Malik and others', decided on 03.01.2011 (Annexure P -3). Since a specified amount was found to be recovered from the husband of the petitioner No. 1, the now enhanced amount cannot be recovered from the petitioners specially when the liability has been held to be joint and several. That apart, the fact that the husband of the petitioner has expired is also not in dispute. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are only legal representatives of the Driver Inder Kumar, the impugned orders cannot sustain and the remaining amount even on equity requires to be paid by the remaining respondents i.e. those who were parties before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.