1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2902/2005 SATYA NARAIN V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 12/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mrs. Pramila Acharya, for Petitioner. Mrs. R.R.Kanwar, Addl. State Counsel. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.4.2005, by which respondents ordered to effect recovery of a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid recovery was intended to be effected by the respondents in view of the accident of the vehicle which was being driven by the petitioner. However, referring to the judgment of the MACT, it is submitted that the respondents No.2 and 3 therein were held vicariously liable for payment of the compensation and in view of the aforesaid direction, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amount of compensation was not be recovered from the petitioner, 2 i.e., the driver of the vehicle. In those circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 13.4.2005 be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that since the petitioner had driven the vehicle with rash and negligence, thus, not only Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held him responsible for the accident, but also made him liable for payment of compensation, though taking into consideration, vicarious liability of respondents No. 2 and 3, in the claim petition, a direction for payment of compensation was effected against them. But, then, the petitioner is not absolved from his liability. In view of the above submission, prayer of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the recovery pursuant to the impugned order has rightly been effected. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the matter. On perusal of the award of the MACT, udaipur, it 3 becomes clear that the driver was not held responsible for payment of compensation, but even if it is assumed that the petitioner is made responsible for payment of the compensation with jointly and severally liability, then such punishment remains between claimants and to each of non claimants from whom the amount is to be recovered. So far as the respondent – employee is concerned, he can be fastened with the liability for payment of compensation only when misconduct is proved after holding disciplinary inquiry so as to effect recovery against the employee. In the present matter, no inquiry was conducted so as to effect the recovery. It is otherwise a fact that the petitioner, being a driver, accident may take place for various reasons, but, in that event, the respondent being the employer and owner of the vehicle, always remains vicariously liable for the compensation as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view of the above, the respondents cannot shift their liability, more so when the petitioner is a low paid employee, working only on the post of driver, hence in view of these facts and circumstances, the order 13.4.2005 cannot be allowed to be effected against the petitioner, hence same is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with 4 the direction to the respondents not to recover any amount from the petitioner arising out of the accident in the present matter. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd