CWP(T) No. 9224 of 2008(OA No.292/03 4.12.2009 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Mankotia, vice Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing Annexure A-3 dated 8.1.2003 vide which Managing Director of respondent No.1 has directed the recovery of Rs.6,250/- from the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 27.12.2002 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in M.A.C. No.43 of 2001. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 27.12.2002 had awarded interim compensation Rs.25,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to Usha Rani petitioner in MAC No.43 of 2001. In fact Usha Rani had filed claim petition against Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Roshan Lal driver etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No.1 has taken a decision vide letter dated 3.2.2009 to the effect that where the recovery orders have been issued by the Regional Manager/Head of offices and concerned driver had filed OAs & stay has been granted against the said recovery. But later on such drivers have been acquitted in criminal cases, in such cases the recovery order be withdrawn subject to withdrawal of OAs by the official/driver concerned. The learned counsel for the respondents has not denied this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The present case of the petitioner is on better footing in as much as the recovery was ordered by the Managing Director vide Annexure A-3 in pursuance of interim award of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur vide which under section 140 of the Act an amount of Rs.25,000/- was ordered to be paid to Usha Rani but the Managing Director of the corporation has ordered to recover only an amount of Rs.6,250/- from the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner. On the contrary, as per accident report Annexure A-4, bus driver Roshan Lal was not found negligent in causing the accident. The Section 140 is of no fault liability. The Tribunal in the order dated 27,12,2002 has not recorded finding of negligence of driver. Once there is nothing on record regarding the negligence of bus driver for causing the accident, therefore the Managing Director has erred in ordering recovery of Rs.6,250-/ vide Annexure A-3 dated 8.1.2003 from the petitioner. The Corporation vide letter dated 3.2.2009 has already taken a decision that where the driver has been acquitted in criminal case then no recovery is to be made from such driver. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case, hence Annexure A-3 dated 8.1.2003 is quashed. The petition stands disposed of. (Kuldip Singh), Judge December 4, 2009 (sks)