Keshavlal Chhaganlal Vaghela vs Commissioner (Eng.), Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

S.K. Keshote, J.—Heard learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioner, a driver in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad,

filed this Special Civil Application challenging thereunder the order of the respondent, Annexure ""A"", dated 8.6.1983, under which he was directed

to pay 50% of the amount of compensation awarded to the injured in accident by the motor vehicle which, at the relevant time, the petitioner was

driving. While driving the vehicle of the Corporation, the petitioner injured two cyclists. The cyclists filed M. A.C. petition No. 27 of 1981 before

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Ahmedabad. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner was a

party in the aforesaid M.A.C. case before the M.A.C.T., Ahmedabad. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,930.80 as a compensation to the injured.

The Tribunal has held that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Under the order impugned in this Special Civil Application,

the Corporation has called upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,465.50, the 50% of the amount of compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T. in favour

of the injured.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of this order on two counts. Firstly, it is contended that this order has been

passed by respondent without giving a notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has next been contended that the respondent has no

authority whatsoever to recover the amount of compensation awarded to the injured from the petitioner. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner contended that the vehicle which the petitioner was driving at the relevant time was insured with the Insurance Company and the amount

of compensation which has beer, awarded to the cyclists has to be paid by the Insurance Company.

On the other hand/the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the Corporation has taken a lenient view in the matter against the

petitioner. The Corporation cannot be fastened with liability of compensation because of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The

compensation has to be paid by the Corporation and the petitioner jointly and severally. The amount of compensation is the result of rash and

negligent driving of the petitioner and as such whole of the amount could have been recovered from the petitioner. The Corporation has taken a

lenient view in the matter and only 50% of the amount was asked to be paid by the petitioner. It has next been contended that the petitioner was a

party to the accident claims case where the Tribunal has found him to be driving a vehicle rashly and negligently. In view of these facts, there was

no necessity on the part of the Corporation to give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The compensation has been awarded to the cyclists

because of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner which fact has been found proved by quasi-judicial authority and as such, there was no

necessity to hold any further inquiry.

Lastly, it is contended that it is the amount of compensation which has been awarded to the cyclists because of rash and negligent driving of the

petitioner and as such the Corporation has all right to recover this amount from the petitioner. Otherwise also, the petitioner being a driver of the

vehicle, was jointly and severally liable for this amount.

So far as the last contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, Mr. Mazgaonker urged that no such plea has been taken by

the petitioner in the writ petition.

I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties.

The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner has accident the vehicle of the Corporation which resulted in causing injury to the cyclists. There is

no dispute that the injured filed an application before M.A.C.T. Ahmedabad and therein the amount of Rs. 2,930.80 has been awarded as

compensation. The accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner which is clearly borne out from the fact that the

Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the cyclists. If it is so, then why the public body, the Municipal Corporation should bear the

amount of compensation awarded to the injured. It is a public money and it cannot be allowed to go for the purpose other than the services to be

rendered to the people. The petitioner was the person who caused accident by driving a vehicle of the Corporation rashly and negligently. It is his

rash and negligent driving which resulted in the award of compensation in favour of the injured in the said accident. The petitioner has to reimburse

that amount of compensation for which the Corporation has all justification to direct the petitioner to make the payment thereof. I find sufficient

merits in the contention of Mr. Mazgaonker, learned Counsel for the respondent, that the Corporation has taken a lenient view against the

petitioner. Otherwise, the while amount of compensation awarded to the injured by the Tribunal could have been recovered from him. Only 50%

of the amount has been ordered to be recovered. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also devoid of any substance.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any provision from the Statute or any Resolution of the Corporation where it has been

decided that even in vehicle accident cases, where the drivers of the Corporation were held to be driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, causing

accidents, were not made liable for the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation has a direct nexus with the rash and negligent

driving of the petitioner and as such the Corporation has all the right to recover this amount from the petitioner. There is no justification in the

prayer of the petitioner who had been held to be responsible for causing of this accident. Nothing wrong has been done by the Corporation, but it

has been burdened with the liability of compensation awarded to the cyclists because of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, The

Corporation has not given any licence to the petitioner to drive its vehicle rashly and negligently. It is his own act for which he could have been and

should have been made liable to reimburse, if any, financial burden has been levied on the Corporation. The last contention which has been made

by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also devoid of any substance and no such plea has been taken by the petitioner in this Special Civil

Application. It is true that in case the vehicle was insured and this liability has to be reimbursed by the Insurance Company to the Corporation, then

there may not be any question of recovering of this amount from the petitioner, but it is for the petitioner to establish this fact and which he utterly

failed to make out any case. In support of the argument made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no foundation of fact on record. It

is a question of fact which has to be established and the petitioner has utterly failed to prove the same. The petitioner has not produced any

material on record to show and establish (i) that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, (ii) the insurance company was the party to

the accident claims case filed by the cyclist, (iii) the award has also been passed against the Insurance Company, and (iv) the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the injured has been paid by the insurance company. The last arugment is nothing but only an argument

advanced without there being any factual foundation for the same on record in this Special Civil Application.

In the result, this Special Civil Application fails and the strife is dismissed. The operation of the order Annexure ""A"" has been stayed by this

Court and as such, the Corporation could not recover the amount of Rs. 1,465.50 from petitioner for all these years. It is hereby ordered that the

Corporation shall be entitled to recover the amount in question from the petitioner together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. The interest shall be

payable from 11th November/1983 till the amount is paid by the petitioner. The petitioner is further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs of

this petition to the Corporation. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated.