P L D (Rev (PLP)
THE NEW DISTRICT BUS SERVICE LTD.‑Petitioner Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hussain, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | THE NEW DISTRICT BUS SERVICE LTD.‑Petitioner Versus THE 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: Akhtar Hussain, 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) (THE NEW DISTRICT BUS SERVICE LTD.‑Petitioner Versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim, for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
Motor Vehicle‑Company responsible for acts of employees
That employee was punished for overloading or overcharging no ground for escaping liability under. Motor Vehicles Act
Order cancelling permit may be altered in a fit case to one suspending the permit. The Transport Company is liable under the Motor Vehicles Act (Section 60) for the acts of their employees. The fact that the employees have been punished by Courts for overloading or overcharging does not affect the liability of the company. Where proprietors of a company were refugees and the company was a small concern, order of cancellation was altered to one of suspension of permits. Present: Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi.
Judgment & Decree
AKHTAR HUSSAIN, F. C.--‑One Stage Carriage Permit of each of the two routes Rawalpindi Devi Ditta and Rawalpindi Chakbeli of the appellants Company were cancelled by the R. T. A. Rawalpindi, as their two stage carriages were found carrying excessive number of passengers and also for over charging. The Company was challaned for overloading previously also a number of times. The learned counsel of the appellants has asserted that there had been no overcharging as alleged by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority. I have examined some of the case mentioned in the comments received from the Secretary Regional Transport Authority and found that the calculation of overcharging made by the Secretary are not correct. It has been conceded by the learned counsel of the petitioners that the Company had been challaned several times before also but lie argued that in those cases the drivers were duly punished by the Courts and the Company had turned them out arid that the Company should not have been punished twice for the same offence. This argument does not however, carry any weight since the Company is responsible for the act of their employees. Keeping in view, however, that the proprietors of the Company are refugees and are a small concern it would therefore, be fair that instead of cancelling their permits and depriving them altogether of their only business, the permits should be suspended for some period. I, therefore, accept this appeal to the extent that instead of cancellation of the permits these should remain suspended for a period of three months from the date the permits are actually suspended. Announced. A. H. Order modified.