JUDGMENT
Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for issuing of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated May 6, 1998 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commandant, 3rd Commando Battalion, Phase XI, Mohali (respondent No. 3), directing the recovery of half of the compensation amount along with interest amounting to Rs.1,18,545/- being 50% of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh to the claimants, viz. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, sister of the deceased Dalip Kumar, and Devinder Singh injured, respectively, from the salary of the petitioner in instalments at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month.
2. The petitioner has averred that he was working as Head constable/Driver in the 4th Commando Battalion, Chandigarh. On May 3, 1993, Davinder Singh was driving Scooter No. CHN-7422 and Dalip Kumar was sitting behind him. They were going from sector 5 towards Industrial Area. When the scooter turned on the dividing road of Sectors 5 and 8, a Punjab Police Marutr Gypsy No. PB-12-A-5849 came from the side of Sectors 4 and 9 round-about at a very fast speed and struck with scooter of Davinder Singh. Both Dalip Kumar and Davinder Singh were injured and sustained injuries. Dalip Kumar, who was sitting on the pillion, expired in the P.G.I., on the next day, i.e., May 4, 1993. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,00/- as compensation to Smt. Kaushalya Devi, sister of the deceased Dalip Kumar and Rs.5,000/- to Davinder Singh, injured. Since the jeep of the government was not insured, the liability of payment of the amount of compensation was fastened upon respondent Nos. 1 to 3, viz., the State of Punjab, Directors General of the Police, Punjab and the petitioner, who was driving the gypsy. All these respondents were held jointly and severally liable for the amount of compensation to be paid (o the claimants. A copy of the award dated April 3, 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-l. It has been further averred that a case FIR No. 44 dated May 3, 1993 under Sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sector 3 (North), Chandigarh was registered against him. He was acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated August 10, 1996 of the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Chandigarh, a copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-2, It has been further averred that against the award dated April 3, 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, the petitioner and the State of Punjab filed FAOs Nos. 2552 of 1996 and 252 of 1997 respectively, but these were dismissed by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated September 5, 1997.
Notice of motion was issued.
Written statement was filed.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that since respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were held liable jointly and severally and also the fact that the petitioner was an employee of the State of Punjab, i.e., respondent No. 1, he is, thus, not liable to pay 50% of the amount of compensation to the respondent-State and therefore, the show cause notice (Annexure P-3) served upon him by the Commandant, 2rd Commando Battalion, Mohali for the recover)’ of the said amount is against the law. He has further stated that as the petitioner is the servant of the respondent-State, he cannot be asked to pay 50% of the amount of compensation. He has further drawn my attention that no departmental enquiry has been held to find out the true facts. Show cause notice (Annexure P-3) was issued on the directions of the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2), whereby he had directed that half of the amount of compensation along with interest thereon be recovered from the petitioner. This half of the amount of compensation ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, was done without holding any enquiry and examining the facts of the case. The show cause notice (Annexure P-3) has indicated that it was being issued on the directions of the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2). The impugned order was passed against the petitioner on May 6, 1998 (Annexure P-5) by the Commandant, 3rd Commando Battalion, Phase XI, Mohali for the recovery of Rs. 1,18,5457- being half of the amount of compensation, along with interest thereon. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has stated the as liability was joint and several, thus, the petitioner fell within the definition of “joint and several” and was liable to pay 50% of the amount of compensation. The claimants have already been paid entire amount by the respondent-State and thus, it was entitled to recover 50% of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh from the petitioner.
5. No doubt, the petitioner is a servant of the respondent-State, but it was he, who was driving the vehicle in question rashly and negligently clearly in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). The respondent-State cannot be held liable for the act done by the petitioner-driver in violation of the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the authority rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Versus. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirks and others, (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 375, wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have held that the State has vicarious liability. Clerk in the department took charge of Government jeep from its driver, who was under the influence of liquor. The Clerk was driving the jeep with the consent and under the authority of driver of the jeep when the accident was caused. This vicarious liability of the State is qua the compensation to be paid to the claimants. The claimants were at liberty to claim the compensation from the respondent-State or the petitioner-driver. In the present case also, the compensation has been claimed by the claimants from the respondent-State. The respondent-State was vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-driver, who met with an accident and in the process, Davinder Singh was injured and Dalip Kumar died. I have gone through the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case cited above. It has non-where been stated in the judgment that the respondent-State cannot recover 50% of the amount of compensation, which it has paid to the claimants, from the petitioner-driver. He has further drawn my attention to the judgment rendered in the case of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana and another? 1999(3) RCR (Civil) 317. It is also a case of vicarious liability. For the sake of repetition, no doubt, the respondent-State is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimants as it was their driver, who was driving the government jeep. In the instant case, it is the State, who is wanting to fix the responsibility of the petitioner-driver for half of the amount of compensation as per the award dated April 3, 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh wherein it has been held that the both the respondent-State and the driver are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. Vicarious liability to pay the compensation awarded of the respondent-State is qua the respondent-claimants and not qua the petitioner. The respondent-state is well within its right to claim 50% of the amount already paid by it to the claimants.
For the reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the show cause notice,
Annexure P-3, and the order dated May 6, 1998 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Com
mandant, 3rd Commando Battalion, Phase XI, Mohali (respondent No. 3). The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.