HARI SINGH YADAV Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, challenge is made to the order of recovery for a sum of Rs. 15000/ -. It is due to award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") in regard to accident The petitioner is a driver who caused an accident on 21.01.1998. The Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 63,000/ - holding Corporation as well as petitioner to be liable jointly and severely. The petitioner was served with the charge sheet. He had admitted all the charges but prayed for sympathetic view. The respondent -corporation taking sympathetic view, ordered for recovery of Rs. 15000/ - out of Rs. 63000/ -. I find aforesaid to be in ignorance of the fact that Corporation is vicariously liable for the act of its employee. It is, no doubt true that pursuant to charge sheet, the petitioner had admitted his charges but then legal position in that regard cannot be ignored. It is not a case where accident was caused by the driver under the influence of liquor or in similar such circumstances, though the Tribunal held petitioner to be negligent. The perusal of award does not show as to how negligence was caused. Taking note of overall facts and amount of being of Rs. 15000/ -, it needs to be decided on legal ground. In the similar matters, orders of the same nature have been set aside by this Court in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court where liability on the driver in similar manner was set aside. Thus, I am inclined to accept the writ petition so as to set aside the impugned order of recovery, moreso when, there was an interim order, thus recovery could not be made from the petitioner.

(2.) THE impugned order is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid. This disposes of the stay application as well.