Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, and Justice V Lakshminarayan observed that the MACT did not have jurisdiction to arrive at the liability of the driver and was only concerned with the claim. The court thus opined that if submission before the MACT was to preclude the management from taking disciplinary proceedings, it would be enlarging the scope of the MACT which was beyond the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act.”https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-transport-corporation-diffent-stand-in-mact-no-bar-for-disciplinary-proceeding-254131#:~:text=Chief%20Justice%20SV,Motor%20Vehicles%20Act.

[04/04, 12:55] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-transport-corporation-diffent-stand-in-mact-no-bar-for-disciplinary-proceeding-254131
[04/04, 12:56] sekarreporter1: “Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, and Justice V Lakshminarayan observed that the MACT did not have jurisdiction to arrive at the liability of the driver and was only concerned with the claim. The court thus opined that if submission before the MACT was to preclude the management from taking disciplinary proceedings, it would be enlarging the scope of the MACT which was beyond the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act.”
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-transport-corporation-diffent-stand-in-mact-no-bar-for-disciplinary-proceeding-254131#:~:text=Chief%20Justice%20SV,Motor%20Vehicles%20Act.