IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.7340 of 2008 (OA No.221 of 2001) Date of decision: July 16, 2010. Gurdas Ram …. Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and another. …. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The petitioner herein is a Driver in Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC), Kullu Depot. On 16.6.1997, while driving the HRTC Bus No.HP-34-3019, the bus met with an accident and one passenger Jai Narayan resident of Kanpur sustained injuries, thus, a case under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner. Ultimately, in Criminal Case No.148-1 of 99/97, after full-fledged trial, he was acquitted vide detailed judgment dated 29.7.1999. Copy of said judgment is Annexure P-2. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - 2. Shri Jai Narayan, injured filed a claim petition No.667/98 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kanpur City. The petitioner was not made a party to that petition, but however the petition was allowed and the compensation of Rs.76,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum was awarded. Consequently, the HRTC deposited the compensation amount of Rs.95,739/- inclusive interest. 3. Thereafter, the respondent-HRTC issued office order Annexure P-1 to recover the amount, of compensation from the petitioner, paid by them, which has been assailed in the Original Application No.221 of 2001, filed before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal was resisted and contested by the respondents. The petitioner also filed a rejoinder to the reply. The matter remained pending before the Tribunal, in the meantime, the Tribunal was abolished by the Government, as a result thereof, all the pending matters including the present one were transferred to this Court and registered as CWP (T) No.7340 of 2008. 4. During hearing of this case, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of Circular No.Ho:4- 3(380)/86-Vol-V dated 3.2.2009, issued by HRTC, which reads as under:- - 3 - “HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SHIMLA-171003 No.Ho:4-3(380)/86-Vol-V dated 3-2-2009 From: Managing Director H.R.T.C., Shimla-3. To All the Unit Officers in Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Subject: Recoveries of amount awarded by MACTs in claim cases. Memo, In continuation to this office letter of even number dated 8.11.2007, a large number of references are received from the Unit Officers regarding recovery of the amount awarded by MACT in claim cases. Though, in the past, numerous instructions have been issued by this office conveying therein that the amount of the MACT award is required to be recovered from the concerned drivers proportionately. But, references were made on the grounds that in case particular driver is acquitted by the Criminal Court in that event whether the recovery of awarded amount is to be effected or not and it has been decided by the competent authority that no recovery shall be effected where drives are acquitted in criminal case. You are directed that where the recovery orders have been issued by the Regional Manager/ Head of offices and concerned driver had filed OA’s & 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 OA’s by the official/ Driver concerned. Sd/- For Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla-171003. [Emphasis supplied] - 4 - 5. In view of the above letter, when the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case against him, the recovery order Annexure P-1 is unsustainable, hence quashed. The consequences shall follow. The petition stands disposed of. July 16, 2010. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.