IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5347 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.7440/2008]

GURLOVLEEN SINGH .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.  Heard the learned counsel. 2. A motor accident involving a scooterist and a Peter Rehra (which is a  

banned  indigenous  makeshift  motorised  vehicle)  resulted  in  the   death  of  the  

scooterist.   In  a claim petition by his  legal  heirs,  the Accident  Claims Tribunal  

awarded compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- and directed that 70% of the said amount  

should be recovered from the eight respondent (who was the driver of the Peter  

Rehra) and 30% should be recovered from respondents 1 to 4 (the State of Punjab  

and its functionaries). The State was made liable on the ground that it had failed to  

curb the menace of such unauthorised vehicles on the road. The said judgment was  

challenged by respondents 1 to 4 before the High Court on the ground that they  

could not be made liable to payment part of the compensation.  The High Court, by  

the impugned judgment dated 19.1.2007, did not choose to interfere with the award  

of the tribunal.  But, while dismissing the appeal  

.....2.

- 2 -

it, however, observed that as the control over motor vehicles under the Act had to  

exercised by the District Transport Officer and as the District  Transport  Officer  

had  failed  to exercise such control, the 30% amount, which was ordered to be paid  

by respondents 1 to 4 herein, should be recovered from the salary of the District  

Transport Officer concerned posted in the district at the time of the accident.  

3. Feeling aggrieved, the District Transport Officer is before us.  He rightly  

points out that he did not permit the Peter Rehra to operate or use public places or  

roads and it was a wholly unauthorised vehicle.  If a person unauthorisedly takes  

out a vehicle on roads obviously the District Transport Officer could not be made  

liable to pay compensation for the resultant injuries. In fact he was not even heard  

before making him liable.

4. We,  therefore,  allow  this  appeal  and delete  the  last  paragraph in  the  

impugned judgement of the High Court whereby the State was directed to recover  

the money from the appellant (District Transport Officer).

  .........................J.    ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    .........................J. August 07, 2009.           ( P. SATHASIVAM )