TOP BAHDUR THAPA Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional Application is directed against the Order passed by Ld. MACT, Mohali dated 4.10.2018, whereby the Application moved by Petitioner along-with the Project Director Regional Spinal Injuuries Centre Proforma Respondent/Respondent No.2 in the MACT case, for framing the issues as per their pleadings in MACP No.2095 of 2018 was disposed off, without impleading the employer of the Petitioner namely Good House Keeping (Regd.) Facility Management Services, Head Office Palam Colony, New Delhi-110077 and the Branch Office, General Manager, Good House Keeping (Regd.) SCO No.7, Star Complex, Sector 41-B, Village Butela, Chandigarh, nor framing any issue regarding the liability of the said employer.

(2.) The Petitioner happens to be Driver of the Offending Vehicle involved in the accident, which is the subject matter of the Compensation Claim before the Ld. Tribunal. His contention is that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant time in the course of his employment when it had been temporarily made over by its Registered Owner (Respondent No.4) in favour of Petitioner's Employer namely Good House Keeping (Regd.) Facility Management Services, Head Office Palam Colony, New Delhi- 110077 and the Branch Office, General Manager, Good House Keeping (Regd.) SCO No.7, Star Complex, Sector 41-B, Village Butela, Chandigarh. He therefore, contends that his aforesaid Employer would be a necessary party, being vicariously liable to pay any compensation if claimed on behalf of victim, and had therefore, sought impleadment of his said Employer as an additional Respondent in the Compensation Case.

(3.) The Ld. Tribunal however, was not convinced by his reasoning and rejected his prayer after observing inter-alia -