Petitioner-Union sought directions prohibiting recovery of accident compensation from drivers of State Transport vehicles. Court noted Government instructions barring such recovery except in criminal negligence cases and dismissed the petition as no further orders were needed.
No further directions issued; petition 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.
CWP No. 12969 of 1996 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 12969 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2014
Punjab Roadways Drivers Ekta Union
.. .. Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab & others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. H.S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 3
RITU BAHRI , J.
Petitioner-Union has approached this Court by way of
instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of directions that the motor vehicles owned by the State Transport Undertaking be got insured or in the event of any accident,
no recovery in respect of the claim, paid by the Government to the claimants under Sections 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act be made
from the drivers of the offending vehicle.
Petitioner-Union is a registered Union and Gurcharan Singh
GAURAV 2014.09.15 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 12969 of 1996 (O&M) -2-
is the General Secretary of the Union, who has filed this petition on behalf of the Union. Whenever any accident takes place and compensation is claimed, the driver of the vehicle, Managing Director of the State Transport and the State Government are made parties. The
vehicles which are owned by the State Government or State Undertakings are not insured with the Insurance Company and a special fund is created for the purpose of paying off the claims. Reference has
been made to Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:-
“ 146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk.
Explanation.-- A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub- section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub- section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force.
GAURAV 2014.09.15 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 12969 of 1996 (O&M) -3-
(a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the vehicle is used for Government purposes connected with any commercial enterprise;
(b) any local authority;
(c) any State transport undertaking:
Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any such authority unless a fund has been established and is maintained by that authority in accordance with the rules made in that behalf under this Act for meeting any liability arising out of the use of any vehicle of that authority which that authority or any person in its employment may incur to third parties. (underlining added)
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub- section," appropriate Government" means the Central Government or a State Government, as the case may be, and--
(i) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central Government or any State Government, means the Central Government or that State Government;
(ii) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central Government and one or more State Governments, means the Central Government;
(iii) in relation to any other State transport undertaking or any local authority, means that Government which has control over that undertaking or authority.”
The meaning of the above said Section is being understood
by various State Transport Authorities. Whenever the Government has
to pay money to the claimants, as third party risk, then that money is
sought to be recovered from the drivers who had driven the vehicle. This procedure is contrary to the scheme of Section 146 of the Act. However, in the State Transport (Punjab), General Managers of the Punjab Raodways have started issuing notices to some of the drivers,
who were involved in the accident (P-1 and P-2). The drivers of the
GAURAV 2014.09.15 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 12969 of 1996 (O&M) -4-
State Transports, Local Bodies and the Government have accepted the jobs under the belief that the provisions of Section 146 of the Act shall be implemented in its right spirit. The special fund is substituted for the insurance.
The short point for consideration before this Court is that whether the State Government/State Transport can recover compensation from the drivers, when any accident takes place, as per Section 146 of the Act.
Reference has been made to a judgment passed by this Court titled as Nazar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, passed in CWP No. 12064 of 1994, decided on 21.12.2013 wherein the driver was held negligent in driving the bus and he was asked by the respondents to pay the compensation to the injured. This Court allowed the petition by relying upon the judgment of State of Maharashtra and others v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and others, 1995(5)
SCC 659 and held that it is for the respondents that in compliance of Section 146 of the Act, either they should get their vehicles insured or establish a fund and maintain in accordance with the Rules to be made in that behalf under the Act for meeting any liability arising out of the use of any vehicle of the respondents which may be incurred to the third parties in this behalf.
In pursuance of the order dated 14.11.2013 passed by this
GAURAV 2014.09.15 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 12969 of 1996 (O&M) -5-
Court, an affidavit dated 29.11.2013 has been filed by the Director, State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and
2, wherein it has been stated that the Government of Punjab, vide its memo No. 9/40/2001-IT2/2350 dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure R-1) has categorically instructed that no recovery of compensation be effected from drivers, who are not held guilty in criminal cases. Only departmental enquiries be initiated against such drivers. It has been further stated that in pursuance of the aforesaid instructions, no recovery of compensation has been effected from the drivers, who are held guilty in Criminal Courts. However, after holding regular departmental enquiries against the delinquent drivers, if they are in service, then their increments with or without cumulative effect are being stopped and if, they have retired from services, then only cut in pension thereof, is imposed.
In view of the Punjab Government instructions (Annexure R-
The petition stands dismissed.
( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
11.09.2014 G Arora/ajp
GAURAV 2014.09.15 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State Government/State Transport can recover compensation from drivers when an accident takes place under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Whether the practice of recovering compensation from drivers instead of maintaining a special fund or insurance complies with Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nazar Singh vs. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶50
Nazar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 12064 of 1994
State of Maharashtra and others v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and othersRelied on¶50
State of Maharashtra and others v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and others, 1995(5) SCC 659 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Punjab Roadways Drivers Ekta Union
State of Punjab
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
