in issue in the present case. Even if a contingency fund is maintained by the State Government in terms of Section 146(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the rules governing the service conditions of the employees would naturally have independent existence, in view of the master servant relationship between the Government and the employee. The said rules would thus be on independent footing. The action taken by the respondents in the present case is purported to be taken in accordance with the said Rules which have no co-relation with Section 146(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The judgement in Kanchanmala Vijaysin Shirke’s case (supra) relied upon by the petitioner in our view, does not help the case of the petitioner. In the said case, the State had taken the stand that the driver had not been authorized to use the vehicle. However, a conclusion was ultimately reached that the driver was fully authorized to drive the vehicle in connection with affairs of the State. The apex court thus held that State could not escape its vicarious liability to pay compensation to heirs of the victim, due to negligent act of the driver in the course of employment. There can be no dispute with the proposition laid down in the said judgement. In
