State Of Tamilnadu vs P.L. Bhagat & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5263 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                      +    MAC.APP.NO.417/2009
                               Date of Decision : 19th November, 2010

%

      STATE OF TAMILNADU                      ..... Appellant
                    Through : Mr. V. Senthil Kumar and
                              Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy, Advs.

                      versus

      P.L. BHAGAT & ANR.                    ..... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Adv.
                               for R-1 along with R-1 in
                               person.
                               Mr. O.P. Mannie, amicus
                               curiae.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may
        be allowed to see the Judgment?
                                                               Not
2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Necessary

3.      Whether the judgment should be
        reported in the Digest?

J.R. MIDHA, J. (Oral)

1. The appellants has challenged the award of the Claims

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.29,374/- has been

awarded to respondent No.1.

2. The accident dated 25th September, 2001 resulted in

grievous injuries to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was

fixing a board for M/s Green Line when the offending car came

and hit him resulting in grievous injuries.

3. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the

appellant at the time of hearing of this appeal is that the driver

of the offending vehicle was negligent and, therefore, the

liability to pay the compensation should be put on the driver

and the appellant should be exonerated.

3. The Claims Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the

charge sheet and other documents in which it is recorded that

the offending car hit the scooter being driven by the deceased

and thereafter the TSR. Admittedly, the driver was employed

with State of Tamil Nadu and is still continuing the said

employment and, therefore, the employer is vicariously liable

to pay the compensation in respect of the accident in question.

The finding of the Claims Tribunal in this regard is upheld.

4. There is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.

5. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount

along with up to date interest with the Registrar General of this

Court in terms of the order dated 31 st August, 2009. The

Registrar General is directed to release the same to

claimant/respondent No.1 within two weeks.

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 19, 2010 aj