SAMPURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of six writ Petitioner, i.e. CWP Nos. 12289, 16593, 13519 of 2007; and 12293, 12311 and 12637 of 2008. The common question of law involved in these writ petitions is whether the State is entitled to recover from the driver a part of the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on account of compensation as a result of the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. All the Petitioners in various writ petitions, who are serving as drivers, have sought quashing of the order where part of the amount granted as compensation on account of the accident caused while driving the vehicle of State, has been directed to be recovered from them.

(2.) HOWEVER , for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 12289 of 2007 for the purpose of deciding the issue in hand.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the order, Annexure P -5 dated 25th July, 2007 on various grounds. He has contended inter alia that it was the mandatory duty of the owner to get the vehicle insured against third party risk in terms of Section 146(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under Section 146 (2), the State was supposed to maintain a contingency fund to indemnify the third party loss caused in the accident. According to the counsel, had this mandatory provision been followed, there would have been no necessity to recover the amount from the driver i.e. the Petitioner. The counsel has further argued that a perusal of show cause notice, Annexure P -3 would show that Respondent No. 2 had already prejudged the issue and had decided to impose recovery of 50% of the amount from the Petitioner. Thus, issuance of show cause notice was just a formality. The counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments reported as State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and Ors., 1995 (3) P.L.R. 375, and Jaswant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (l)S.C.T. 612, in support of his arguments.