1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1437 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 V.Chandrasekaran ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Panchayat Union Council, Dindigul Panchayat Union, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District. 2.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Dindigul Panchayat Union, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 15.03.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.109 of 2006. Prayer in WP(MD)No.109 of 2006 : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari and pleased to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the Second respondent, Na.Ka.No.5428/2000/A1, dated 10.11.2005, and quash the same. For Appellant : Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan For Respondent No.1 : K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader For Respondent-2/ : Mr.N.Sathish Babu Caveator JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY M.VENUGOPAL, J] The Appellant/Petitioner has filed this Writ Appeal as against the order, dated 15.03.2011 in W.P.(MD)No.109 of 2006, passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the Writ Petition. 2.The Appellant/Petitioner filed the above said writ petition seeking to quash the order of the 2nd Respondent, dated 16.11.2005, directing the Appellant/ Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,73,500/- before the Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, in respect of an Award passed in MCOP No.447 of 2000, as he was found responsible for causing a road accident. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The short facts are that the Appellant/Petitioner was the Chairman of Panchayat Union Council, Dindigul, from 25.10.1996 to 31.10.2011. A TATA Sumo Jeep, bearing Regn.No.TN-09 G 0943 was allotted for the use of the Panchayat Union, with a Driver. During the said period, on 22.12.1999, without the knowledge of the Driver of the Car, the Appellant/Petitioner has driven the said jeep and caused an accident dashing the jeep against one N.Sundarraj. rider of a scooter bearing Regn.No.TN 57 G 122. The said Sundarraj filed a Claim Petition in MCOP No.447 of 2000 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub- Court), Dindigul, seeking a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, based on oral and documentary evidence, in its Award dated 23.06.2004, in MCOP No.447/2000, has held that TATA Sumo Jeep, bearing Regn.No.TN-09 G 0943, dashed against the claimant/scooterist, has been driven by the Appellant/Petitioner at the time of accident in his capacity as Panchayat Union Chairman. By the said Award, (i)the Chairman, Dindigul Panchayat Union, the Appellant/Petitioner; (ii) the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu; and (iii) the Commissioner of Rural Development Department have been directed to pay the Award amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, together with interest at 9% per annum, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition by the Injured/Victim N.Sundarraj in the accident, involving the Jeep of the Dindigul Panchayat Union, driven by the Appellant/Petitioner. 5.Challenging the said Award, C.M.A.(MD)No.976 of 2005 has been filed by the Department and at the time of admitting the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on 06.10.2005, this Court has granted an order of interim stay in CMP(MD)No.6086 of 2005, subject to the condition of the Appellants therein depositing the entire Award Amount, with interest and costs, to the credit of MCOP No.147/2000 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Court), Dindigul, within a period of eight weeks from the date of order. It is, at this stage, the impugned proceedings, dated 10.11.2005, came to be passed by the 2nd Respondent, by which the Appellant/petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, together with interest at 9% per annum, amounting to Rs.1,23,500/-, aggregating in all, a sum of Rs.3,73,500/- before the Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, and further the Appellant/Petitioner has been directed to inform the Office about the said payment being made into the Court. Challenging the said order of the 2nd respondent, the Appellant/Petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.109 of 2006. 6.The learned Single Judge, while passing orders in W.P. (MD)No.109 of 2011, on 15.03.2011, in the order has inter alia stated that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Dindigul Panchayat Union, the 2nd respondent herein, is based on the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Dindigul, in the Award in MCOP No.447 of 2000, wherein the Appellant/Petitioner has been found guilty of driving a Jeep and causing the accident and the said finding recorded by the Tribunal is purely on question of facts, based on oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties before the Tribunal in MCOP No.447/2000. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7.We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 8.On going through the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, namely the Principal Sub-Judge, Dindigul, in MCOP No.447/2000, it is candidly clear that on the date of accident, it is the appellant/petitioner who was driving the vehicle and he has been found to be negligent in causing the accident and only the Appellant/Petitioner is squarely found responsible for the happening of the accident on 22.12.1999 at 12.30 p.m., as seen from the oral and documentary evidence tendered before the Tribunal. The Appellant/Petitioner cannot drive the Jeep, since he is not the official driver of the Jeep. In fact, the Appellant/Petitioner has driven the Tata Sumo Jeep, bearing Regn.No.TN-09 G 0943, belonging to the Panchayat Union Office, Dindigul, and dashed against one Sundraraj, who sustained injuries also. The Appellant/Petitioner only has admitted the injury Sundraraj in a nearby hospital for treatment. After recovering from the injuries, the said Sundarraj has filed MCOP No.447/2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Court), Dindigul, claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 9.In the instant case on hand, it is only the Appellant/Petitioner has been found to have driven the offending vehicle TATA Sumo Jeep, bearing Regn.No.TN-09 G 0943, belonging to the Panchayat Union, Dindigul and since he has caused the accident on 22.12.1999, in and by which the Claimant has sustained injuries, for his negligent act, the Appellant/Petitioner alone is squarely held liable to pay the award amount. Further, the claimant has filed E.P.165/2004 before the Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, and the same is pending. Moreover, at the time of the accident on 22.12.1999, the actual Jeep Driver has not driven the offending vehicle. In fact, the actual driver one Arumugam has not been arrested even by the Police. As a matter of fact, the Appellant/Petitioner has taken the Jeep as referred to above on 22.12.1999, without the knowledge of the actual jeep driver and caused the accident. 10.It is to be noted that the term 'vicarious liability' means the liability of an individual for the tort of another in which he has no part. A master is jointly and severely liable for any tort committed by a servant, while acting in the course of his employment, as per the decision in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Rajasthan - 2005 ACJ at Page 114. 11.On going through the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.109 of 2006, dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that the Learned Single Judge has taken into account all the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case in MCOP No.447 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul, in an integral fashion, and has come to the conclusion that only the Appellant/Petitioner is squarely responsible for causing of the accident and further he has been found negligent and only because of his negligence, the incident/accident has occurred. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the findings of facts recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in confirming the impugned order, dated 10.11.2005, passed by the 2nd respondent herein, in directing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 Appellant/Petitioner to deposit the award amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, along with interest, before the Tribunal. Only based on the Award, dated 23.06.2004, passed by the Tribunal, the impugned order, dated 10.11.2005 has been passed by the Commissioner of Dindigul Panchayat Union. The said order does not suffer from any material irregularity/infirmity or tainted with any patent illegality. 12.Looking at from any angle, the Learned Single Judge has come to a correct conclusion in dismissing the writ petition and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. 13.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The order of the Learned Single Judge, dated 15.03.2011, passed in W.P.(MD)No.109 of 2006, is hereby affirmed by this Court, for the reasons assigned in this Judgment. The Appellant/Petitioner is directed to pay the Award amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, together with interest till date, before the Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Dindigul Panchayat Union, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District. 2.The Chairman, Panchayat Union Council, Dindigul Panchayat Union, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District. +1CC TO MR.D.SRINIVASARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE SR : 43449 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR : 43592 Gb SR : 29.12.2011 : 4p/5c Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1437/2011 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2011 Dated:13.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/