In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 5483 of 2006 (O&M) and Cross objection No.18-CII of 2008 Date of decision: August 11, 2009 State of Punjab .. Appellant Vs. Subash Chander and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4. A.N. Jindal, J This order of mine will dispose of FAO No. 5483 of 2006 and also the Cross Objection Petition No.18-CII of 2008 in respect of the award dated 8.4.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda whereby a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents (herein referred as 'the claimants') along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e. 15.5.2003 till the date of payment. It was further ordered that at the first instance Jagjit Singh respondent No.1 (now respondent No.5) shall firstly be liable to pay the amount of compensation. In case the claimants are unable to recover the amount from the respondent No.5, then the respondent No.3-State of Punjab shall be liable to pay compensation along with interest. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.2.2003, at about 6.00 p.m. Parshotam Dass, Aruna Rani and Laxmi Devi were proceeding from their house to Sar No.4, Bhucho Mandi towards Lehra Khanna road for the purpose of feeding “Till Chauli” (grains) to the ants. When they reached near Laxmi Cotton Factory, then the respondent No.1 while driving his jeep bearing registration No.HYM-7053 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and struck against Aruna Rani, resultantly, she succumbed to the injuries at the spot. A case was registered against Jagjit Singh. It was further alleged that Aruna Rani was house wife and her monthly income F.A.O. No. 5483 of 2006 (O&M) and Cross objection No.18-CII of 2008 -2- was Rs.5000/-. On account of her death, her children had suffered a big set back. Consequently, the compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs was claimed. It was further averred that it was the duty of the State to prevent the vehicles from being plied on the road without third party insurance and also that no person shall drive the vehicle without valid driving licence. As such, the state being negligent was also vicariously liable to pay the award amount to the claimants. The respondent No.1 filed written statement contesting the cause. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether Aruna Rani died in a vehicular accident occurred on 21.2.2003 on Bhucho Lehra Khanna Road due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No.HYM-7053 by its owner/driver Jagjit Singh-respondent No.1?OPA 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPA 3. Whether the claimants have got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present claim petition?OPR 4. Relief. In order to substantiate the claim, the claimants have examined Dr. Kasturi Lal (PW1) who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Aruna Rani, copy of which he proved as Ex.P1. Dr. S.K. Raj Kumar (PW2) had conducted medico legal examination of Jagjit Singh respondent No.1 and found him to be under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. Mohit Gupta (PW3), Lachhmi Devi (PW4) and Subhash Chander (PW5). To the contrary, the respondent examined Jagjit Singh (RW1). On scrutiny of the evidence, the Tribunal accepted the claim petition and awarded compensation in the terms as referred to above. The driver Jagjit Singh has not assailed the award, whereas, the State of Punjab has come up in appeal. The main contention raised by Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab is that it is a case of tort committed by respondent No.1 against the deceased, the liability of which is F.A.O. No. 5483 of 2006 (O&M) and Cross objection No.18-CII of 2008 -3- certainly on the tort-feasor and not the State. Nevertheless, the State has exhaustive machinery to maintain the law and order and provide amenities to the public towards safety and security. The State has also provided a machinery to detect the criminals and apprehend the law breakers, but any act done by the law breaker or a criminal is not to be compensated by the State and it is only the tort-feasor who is responsible for such individual acts, therefore, the Tribunal fell in error in fastening the liability of the tort- feasor upon the State. It has further been urged that the State was not vicariously liable for the fault on the part of the driver but the court intentionally held first liability of the driver then of the State, as the recovery may ultimately be effected from the State. It was also urged that neither the respondent No.5 (driver) was working under the State nor was under its command. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that since it was obligatory on the part of the State to prevent the vehicle from being brought on road without driving licence, as such, the act of the respondent No.5 remained unchecked by the State, therefore, the State was responsible. Having perused the records, it transpires that the Tribunal has taken absurd view in order to extend undue help to the claimants, may be for ulterior motives, as it is a matter of common experience that the drivers are not equipped with sufficient sources to compensate the claimants for the fault on their part, therefore, the claimants could recover the compensation from the State. As a matter of fact, the accident took place on account of the fault on the part of Jagjit Singh respondent No.5 and he being the tort feasor was to compensate the claimants. He was neither employee, agent, attorney or assignee of the State, therefore, the State could not be fastened with any vicarious liability with regard to the act of Jagjit Singh. While taking the case from another angle, it may be observed that the State has set up a complete machinery to check driving by unauthorised drivers. No evidence has been brought on record if Jagjit Singh was never checked or penalised by the said machinery. The appellants have also failed to establish if Jagjit Singh was not issued any driving licence. It is something different that since Jagjit Singh did not F.A.O. No. 5483 of 2006 (O&M) and Cross objection No.18-CII of 2008 -4- produce driving licence in the court or he was under the influence of liquor, therefore, he was held liable. But for the aforesaid reasons, the State could not be held liable. It is a unique example set by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda in observing that the State could be held responsible for every fault on the part of an individual. The Tribunal, who is working as Fast Track Court after its retirement has depicted his irresponsibility towards the system and un-sincerity towards the job which needs to be examined by the High Court so that such absurdity in the order could be arrested in future. Resultantly, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned award and hold that the State could not be held liable for the illegal act done by the respondent No.5. August 11, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge