Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- labour & services appointment: [v.k. bali, ch, p.r. raman & s. siri jagan, jj] post of pharmacist in homeopathy subordinate service - special rules for kerala homeopathy subordinate service rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules held, vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with special rules, 1999. unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by special rules. state government has the power to frame or amend the special rules with or without retrospective effect. mohanan k.r. & anr vs director of homeopathy, kerala homeopathy services, trivandrum & ors. - it is well to remember that the liability of the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

sankaran nair, j.1. petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, district collector, kottayam, to recover a sum of rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent kerala state road transport corporation, called 'k.s.r.t.c.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the motor accidents claims tribunal, kottayam in o.p. (mv) no. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. he moved the motor accidents claims tribunal and an award was passed. it is submitted by both sides that the first respondent k.s.r.t.c., has not filed an appeal the award.2. i have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. first respondent has no valid excuse.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...',
	(int) 4 => '<p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sankaran Nair, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...',
	(int) 4 => '<p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...',
	(int) 4 => '<p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...',
	(int) 4 => '<p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...',
	(int) 4 => '<p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...',
	(int) 4 => '<p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Writ petition is allowed as above.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '726693',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
			'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
			'court' => 'Kerala',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Writ petition is allowed as above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '726693',
		(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vavachan Vs Kerala State Road Trans Corpn and anr - Citation 726693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '726693',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => ' O.P. No. 2279 of 1991',
		'appellant' => 'Vavachan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - LABOUR  & SERVICES
Appointment: [V.K. Bali, CH, P.R. Raman & S. Siri Jagan, JJ] Post of Pharmacist in Homeopathy Subordinate Service -  Special Rules for Kerala Homeopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications  Vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules  Held, Vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with Special Rules, 1999. Unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by Special Rules. State Government has the power to frame or amend the Special Rules with or without retrospective effect. Mohanan K.R. & anr vs Director of Homeopathy, Kerala Homeopathy Services, Trivandrum & ors. -  It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' K. Reghu, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.',
		'court' => 'Kerala',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-03-15',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sankaran Nair, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.</p><p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.</p><p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.</p><p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...</p><p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.</p><p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1992ACJ191',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '726693',
	(int) 1 => 'vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/726693/vavachan-vs-kerala-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sankaran Nair, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise the amount and pay it over to the petitioner within thirty days from today.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Before parting with the case, I must notice a disturbing aspect revealed in this case, as also in several other cases. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals seem to think that only the K.S.R.T.C. is liable to make the payments and not the particular employee who is responsible for the accident. It is well to remember that the liability of the employer is vicarious, while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to comment on this aspect in Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. 1988 ACJ 1 (Kerala). The court observed: .any commercial or utilitarian venture cannot promote or countenance a state of affairs where the negligence of its servants puts the undertaking to huge losses...It behoves not, a public sector undertaking to be a public hazard...',
	(int) 4 => '<p>If the liability of the drivers is fixed, where it ought to be, the Corporation can realise the amount of compensation from them and thus reduce its own losses. The attitude of the Corporation and the attitude of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals requires updating on realistic concerns. It is expected that all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State and the K.S.R.T.C. will act in consonance with the observations made hereinbefore.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>Writ petition is allowed as above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Motor Vehicles
Court	Kerala High Court
Decided On	Mar-15-1991
Case Number	O.P. No. 2279 of 1991
Judge	Sankaran Nair, J.
Reported in	1992ACJ191
Appellant	Vavachan
Respondent	Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr.
Appellant Advocate	K. Reghu, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Adv. and K. Thankappan, G.P.
Disposition	Petition allowed
Cases Referred	Dr. Jacob Eapen v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn.

Vavachan Vs. Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. and anr. - Court Judgment