P L D (Rev (PLP)
NUR ALAM‑‑Appellant Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | J. W. Hearn, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | NUR ALAM‑‑Appellant Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: J. W. Hearn, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (NUR ALAM‑‑Appellant Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
NUR ALAM‑‑Appellant Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAWALPINDI‑Respondent Appeal No. 57 of 1949‑30, decided on 18th January 1950, from the Order, dated 10th October 1949, passed by Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi. Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939)
S. 60 (I) (b)‑Owner of vehicles liable for misuse of permits by servants.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 57 of 1949‑30, decided on 18th January 1950, from the Order, dated 10th October 1949, passed by Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi. Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939)
S. 60 (I) (b)‑Owner of vehicles liable for misuse of permits by servants. This is an appeal against the order of Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, whereby the public carrier permit held by the appellant was suspended for period of three months under section 60(1) (b) of Motor Vehicles Act. The records show that Vehicle No. PBR. 575 belonging to the appellant was found carrying 50 bags of wheat in contra vention of the orders of Government and operating outside its proper area. On the 22nd of June, 1949, the Regional Trans port Authority directed the appellant to explain why action under section 60 of the Act should not be taken against him. The explanation furnished by the appellant was that he had been quite unaware of the activities of the motor driver who acting on his own accord, operated on a new route, loaded wheat, and traveled without a log book. It‑appears that the driver of the vehicle absconded and the cleaner was challaned and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. Without very good reasons to the contrary, I am not prepared to accept the plea that the owner was unaware of the actions of his driver and, in any case, the owner of a vehicle is liable for the misuse of permits by his own servants. I reject the appeal. K.M.A. Appeal dismissed.