SBCMA No.1475/2008 RSRTC Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors. 1 SBCMA No.1475/2008 RSRTC Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 10.11.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.BS Bhati, for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, in total, Rs.16,12,615/- to the Manager of the appellant Corporation, who was travelling in the car hired by the corporation itself. It is not in dispute that the officer was travelling on office duty and the vehicle was taken by the appellant corporation itself for official purposes. The victim was getting salary of Rs.20,400/- per month and after deduction, he was getting Rs.15,485/- per month. He was also getting house and city allowance. The tribunal assessed the total income of the deceased as Rs.17,874/- per month. The deceased was of the age of 53 years and the multiplier of 11 was applied. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not SBCMA No.1475/2008 RSRTC Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors. 2 challenging the quantum nor finding on question of negligence etc., but challenging the award only on the ground that since the vehicle was taken on hire basis by the appellant corporation, therefore, appellant corporation cannot be held liable. According to learned counsel for the appellant, if the vehicle in question was insured then the Insurance Company alone could have been held liable and therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable directly or vicariously. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was taken on contract basis by the appellant and was under full control of the appellant alone for the purpose of plying for official purposes. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was provided to the officer, who died in the accident and when the officer was in the vehicle in question. In view of the above, I do not find that the tribunal has committed any error of law by holding the appellant liable for the compensation for its own employee, who was travelling for official purpose in official vehicle provided by the appellant corporation itself. In view of the above reason of involvement of only SBCMA No.1475/2008 RSRTC Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors. 3 one point, which has no merit, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-