Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 657 (MP)

Dal Chand Sharma v. State of M. P.

2015-06-29

SUJOY PAUL

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Since commonality of issues are involved in these matters, on the joint request, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order. W.P. No. 9073/13 At the relevant time, petitioner was posted as Deputy Director, Agriculture at Guna. During Panchayat Elections of 2010, petitioner was assigned the election duty as a Zonal Officer. He was given Government vehicle, Registration No. MP02-AV284. After the polling, petitioner along with polling party was returning from relevant Panchayat area for depositing election material to Bamori, District Guna. While returning, on 21.6.2010 an accident of said vehicle took place and a person riding bike collided with the said vehicle. The vehicle was being driven by Pooran Singh Goud, the petitioner in W.P. No. 507/14. The victim was taken to hospital. The petitioner promptly informed about the accident to Assistant Returning Officer of Panchayat Election. He also informed concerned Police Station Incharge by giving written information. After getting discharged, the victim Raghuveer filed a claim application before the Court of First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guna which was registered as Claim Case No. 99/11. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred from Guna to Morena after getting relieved from Guna on 21.7.2012. Thereafter, petitioner was again transferred to Bhopal. 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. 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. W.P. 507/14 4. The petitioner in this case was the Driver of the same vehicle which met with accident on 21.6.2010. In this case also the respondents passed the order dated 20.12.2013 whereby directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 4,60,670/- with interest. The argument advanced by Shri Anil Shrivastava is in the same line. 5. Per contra, Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Govt. Advocate supported the order. He submits that the petitioners are responsible for the accident dated 21.06.2013. The respondents have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders. 6. No other points are raised by learned counsel for the parties. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The Tribunal in its award dated 28.10.2013 gave a specific finding in para 20 that vehicle was being driven by Pooran Singh, who is a Government employee. For the instant accident, the employer is liable to pay the compensation. In para 22(2) of the award it is held that non-applicant No. 3/State Government shall be primarily responsible for payment of compensation. Shri Newaskar relied on para 22(1) wherein the Tribunal opined that the non-applicants are jointly and severally responsible for payment of compensation. 9. For the instant accident, the employer is liable to pay the compensation. In para 22(2) of the award it is held that non-applicant No. 3/State Government shall be primarily responsible for payment of compensation. Shri Newaskar relied on para 22(1) wherein the Tribunal opined that the non-applicants are jointly and severally responsible for payment of compensation. 9. This is also brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of these matters, in Criminal Case No. 1623/2010, the petitioner Pooran Singh has been exonerated from the allegations of driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The judgment was delivered on 24.9.2014. This is not in dispute between the parties that the vehicle was taken for election duties and accident is arising out of and during the course of employment. Thus, the short question is whether the petitioners are liable to pay compensation. In para 20 of the award, the Tribunal opined that it is the primary duty of the State Government to pay compensation. 10. In : (2008)1 SCC 414 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and others), the question arise whether in the event a car is requisitioned for the purpose of deploying the same in the election duty, who would be liable for payment of compensation to the victim of the accident? The Apex Court opined as under:-- "No doubt, Respondents 3 and 4 continued to be the registered owners of the vehicle despite the fact that the same was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of the power conferred upon him under the Representation of the People Act. The owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise any control thereover. The driver may still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction of the officer of the State, who is put in charge thereof. Save and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, the registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control thereover." In view of the case law, in the present case, the State shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and not the registered owner of the vehicle and consequently the appellant therein." 11. Save and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, the registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control thereover." In view of the case law, in the present case, the State shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and not the registered owner of the vehicle and consequently the appellant therein." 11. This view is followed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment reported in : (2014)8 Supreme 359 (HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Kumari Reshma). The Apex Court opined as under:-- "Elaborating the concept, the Court referred to Mukesh K. Tripathi V. Senior Divisional Manager LIC : (2004) 8 SCC 387 , Ramesh Mehta V. Sanwal Chand Singhvi : (2204) 5 SCC 409, State of Maharashtra V. Indian Medical Assn. : (2002) 1 SCC 589 , Pandey & Co.; Builders (P) Ltd., V. State of Bihar : (2007)1 SCC 467 and placed reliance on Kailash Nath Kothari (supra), National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Durdadahya Kumar Samal : (1988) 2 TAC 25 (Ori) and Chief Officer, Bhavnagar Municipality V. Bachubhai Arjanbhai : AIR 1996 Guj. 51 and eventually opined the State shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and not the registered owner of the vehicle and consequently the appellant therein, the insurance company." 12. Apart from this, the impugned orders are adverse orders which entail civil consequences. The respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice before fastening liability on the petitioners. For this reason also, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. For these cumulative reasons, the impugned orders in these matters cannot be permitted to stand. Same are set aside. 13. Petitions are allowed. If any amount is recovered from the petitioners pursuant to impugned orders, same be refunded to them within 60 days.