- (1.) THE petitioner, is a driver in Government Primary Health Centre, Vellore District and aggrieved by the notice dated 26.7.2005 issued by the Office of the Assistant Director, Department of Health and Family Welfare, directing him to pay Rs. 64,666/- towards the award passed-by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, he has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: On 15.2.1992 about 6.15 p.m., a jeep bearing Registration No. TCW 4782, driven by the petitioner, dashed against a moped bearing Registration No. TAJ 6579, driven by one Olaganathan. His brother was travelling as a pillion rider in the said moped. At the instance of said Olaganathan, F.I.R., was lodged against the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate, Arani in STC. No. 565 of 1992, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep. The driver of the moped, Olaganathan, made a claim in M.C.O.P. No. 89 of 1992, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arani, in which, the Director of the Family Welfare Department, Chennai and the petitioners were arrayed as first and second respondents respectively. Though the petitioner contested the claim by filing a counter affidavit, the Tribunal found that the driver of the jeep, the petitioner herein was responsible for the accident, and directed the Director of Family Welfare Department, Chennai, the second respondent herein, to deposit Rs. 31,414/- with interest at the rate of 9% interest per annum from the dale of claim, i. e., 30.4.1992, within two months from the date of order. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 26.7.2005 and was directed to pay Rs. 67,666/- towards the award amount and the same is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the vehicle is owned by the Government and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to the victim. The petitioner has further submitted that the Tribunal has fastened the liability only on the second respondent and therefore, the impugned notice directing him to pay compensation is illegal and it is violative of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the third respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner, driver of the Government Primary Health Centre, drove the Government vehicle and met with an accident on 15.2.1992. But the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Director of the Government Primary Health Centre. The third respondent has submitted that as per G.O. Ms. No. 393 Government of Tamil Nadu Home (TN IV) Dept. dated 1.3.1988, the vehicles owned by the Central Government or State Government are not insured and as per Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Departmental Vehicle Control Rules, 1976, the Government owned vehicles are used for public purposes and not for commercial purposes and they are exempted from Insurance against the third party risk. It is further submitted that in order to enforce strict discipline among the driver of the Government vehicles, Government has examined the question of recovery of token amount from the drivers in case of accident to Government vehicles. On examination, the Government has considered the proviso to Rule 8 (v) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) rules and concluded that if any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government by the negligence of the Government servants, recovery can be made by way of penalty. Under this circumstance, the Government has considered that there is no need for making separate rules for making token recovery from the drivers, if they have caused the accident.
(3.) IT is further stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 89 of 1992, the Government has issued G.O. Ms (T). No. 1149, Health and Family Welfare (AT-1), Department, dated 19.10.2004 to disburse the compensation of Rs. 67,666/- with accrued interest to the injured persons as directed by the Tribunal and recover the same from the petitioner. IT is further stated that as per Rule 8(v)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules, the Government is empowered to recover the pecuniary loss caused by the Government servant by his negligence. Therefore, the third respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.;