State Of Punjab And Ors. vs Harjit Singh

2. The respondent who is working passed the impugned order would not be as a constable was driving the vehicle - Maruti Gypsy belonging to the Police department of the Slate of Punjab and the said vehicle met with an accident as a result of which one Suresh Kumar along with his wife named Poonam Uppal suffered injuries. Subsequently, Suresh Kumar succumbed to the same. A claim petition was filed before the motor accident claim tribunal which was allowed. An award was made on 25-4-1997 granting compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 12/o per annum from the dale of the petition till payment was awarded to the claimant.

3. It was alleged that a sum of Rs.5.84,000/- (sic) (including interest) has been paid by the government to the claimant pursuant to the direction given in the award made by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent asking him as to why the aforesaid amount be not recovered from his salary. He filed a reply and after an inquiry the senior Superintendent of Police directed effecting the recovery of the said amount in monthly instalments of Rs.2,000/- per month and the balance to be deducted from his D.C.R.G. and other pensionary benefits.

4. Aggrieved by this action of the appellants, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court noticed that the respondent was not a party to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as he had been deleted from the array of the parties and in the departmental inquiry held against him it had not been clearly found to have driven the vehicle rashly or negligently.

5. In the circumstances, it is clear that the respondent did not have an opportunity to prove his case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal because lie had been deleted from the array of the parties. So far as inquiry is concerned, he was not found guilty of the rash and negligent driving, As such, we arc not able to understand as to how he could have been held to be liable to make good the amount paid by the appellants to the claimant in question. This is beyond our comprehension. We think no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.

Appeal dismissed.