This Special Appeal dismissed the challenge to a Special Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appeal against the single bench order. The court dismissed the appeal, holding the 50% recovery on the driver was legal. No independent grounds to quash the MACT award were found.
The Special Appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 855 of 2018
Appellant :- Pyare Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Adarsh Bhushan,Rahul Agarwal
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the judgment dated 10th August, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 43636 of 2003.
Learned Single Bench under the judgment impugned upheld the order dated 23rd January, 2002 whereunder the disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,65,275/- in instalments from the appellant-petitioner, a driver working with the respondent- Uttar Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation.
Factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that while working as driver with the Corporation, the appellantpetitioner caused an accident on 22nd January, 1995. In a claim arising out of the accident aforesaid, compensation in a tune of Rs. 3,30,550/- was awarded to the victim. The award aforesaid has already acquired finality. After disposal of the claim under provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a disciplinary action was taken against the appellant-petitioner and on arriving at the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner was in negligence a liability has been fastened to recover 50% of the loss caused to the Corporation. A challenge was given to the order passed by the disciplinary Authority dated 23rd January, 2002 by way of filing an appeal that came to be rejected by the Divisional General Manager, Meerut vide order dated 18th August, 2003. Aggrieved by the same, a petition for writ was filed and that also came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned. Learned Single Bench arrived at the conclusion that no factor necessary to invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is attracted and, as such, there is no justification to interfere in the matter.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the employer assailed
validity of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by way of filing an appeal before the High Court with specific assertion that there was no negligence on part of the driver and, therefore, compensation awarded is erroneous and, as such, on the same count no recovery could have been fastened.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
The Corporation while assailing correctness of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal may have taken a ground that the driver was not negligent in causing the accident but that ground admittedly has not been accepted. The ultimate finding that prevailed is about negligence on part of the driver that is the present appellant-petitioner. Beside the above, a regular enquiry was also made by the disciplinary Authority wherein too a finding is given about negligence on part of the appellantpetitioner. In view of this finding there is no illegality in fastened 50% liability of compensation awarded upon the appellant-petitioner.
The appeal, hence is bereft of merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Rameez
(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether fastening liability on the driver for 50% of compensation was legal given findings of negligence in both the disciplinary enquiry and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Whether the Single Bench erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the disciplinary order without reviewing the substantive liability.
Whether the employer's appeal challenging the compensation award affects the validity of the penalty imposed for recovery of losses.
Pyare Lal
State Of U.P.
Uttar Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
