IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 11838 of 2002(H)
1. B.SREDHARAN NAIR,DRIVER,FOREST
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,FLYING SQUARD,
... Respondent
2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,MALAYATTOOR,
3. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR,VIGILANCE,
4. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR,CARDAMOM HILL
5. SECRETARY,FOREST DEPARTMENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.ABOOBACKER PULICKOOL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :21/01/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.No.11838 of 2002-H
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the steps to recover half of the amount
that is covered by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.248/1993, personally from him. He was
working as a Driver in Cardamom Hill Reserve Special Squad under the
Kerala Forest Department, Devikulam. An accident occurred in which the
Adimali Police registered a case and the same was tried as S.T.No.304/1993
by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adimali. That case ended in
acquittal of the petitioner. In O.P.(MV) No.248/1993, an award was passed
against the petitioner and the second respondent in the said case and the
Asst. Conservator of Forests who was the second respondent, was directed
to deposit the award amount.
2. As per Ext.P1, steps were proposed to recover the amount from
the petitioner as well as from one T.V. Sasidharan, Range Officer equally.
According to the petitioner, he filed an appeal by way of Ext.P2 against
Ext.P1. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P3 to contend for the position
that the circular issued by the Government directing to insure Government
OP 11838/2002 2
vehicles for third party risks, has not been followed in this case.
3. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit. It is pointed
out that the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal alleging that there
was negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle.
Consequently, an award was passed by the Tribunal against the petitioner
as well as the Asst. Conservator of Forests. It was found by the Tribunal that
both the driver and the Asst. Conservator of Forests are jointly and severally
liable for paying the compensation amount to the petitioner. An amount of
Rs.18,000/- with interest from the date of petition till realisation was
awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the above award, the Divisional Forest
Officer ordered to recover half of the compensation amount from the
petitioner and the other half from the Range Officer who was the second
respondent in the claim petition. It is also stated that Ext.P2 was not seen
received by the third respondent.
4. Regarding the allegation that third party insurance was not
availed of by the Forest Department, it is stated that it is due to the fault of
the custodian of the vehicle, viz. Flying Squad Range Officer, Chenkulam,
the second respondent before the Tribunal. It is also pointed out that the
order to effect recovery of the amount was made as per the direction of the
Government.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no
OP 11838/2002 3
justification to recover the amount from the petitioner, since the vehicle is
owned by the Forest Department and the Government is liable to remit the
entire amount. It also pointed out that if at the relevant point of time the
insurance coverage was made available, there would not have been any
liability on the part of the petitioner and this alone has resulted in the
present situation.
6. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner was found negligent before
the Tribunal. He was found liable to pay the compensation also along with
the second respondent before the Tribunal. As the award has been satisfied
now, it was open to the Government to recover it from the persons
responsible. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in seeking recovery of the
amount from the petitioner and from the Range Officer equally. In that
view of the matter, Ext.P1 cannot be said to be illegal.
7. If the petitioner has got a case that it was due to the inaction or
negligence on the part of the Range Officer that the insurance coverage was
not availed of, it is upto him to avail legal remedies, if any, available to him.
With the above observations, the original petition is dismissed.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/
OP 11838/2002 4
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.No.11838 of 2002-H
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
21st day of January, 2009.