IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 331 of 2011(N)
1. T.NANDANAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY THAHASILDAR
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. BHASKARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN,
5. KAKIRIKKEN NARAYANI, W/O.KANNAN,
6. KUTTICHI SEETHA, W/O.LATE SUDHAKARAN,
7. KUTTICHI SUKESH, AGED 11 YEARS (MINOR),
8. KUTTICHI SAPNA, AGED 9 YEARS (MINOR),
9. KUTTICHI SRUTHI, AGED 3 YEARS (MINOR),
10. KUTTICHI SRUTHEESH, AGED 3 YEARS (MINOR)
For Petitioner :SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :18/01/2011
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.331 of 2011
==================
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the driver of a vehicle, which was involved in an
accident, which gave raise to a claim before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, by the injured in the accident. The MACT
awarded a total amount of ` 1,03,500/-, out of which, ` 50,832/- was
directed to be paid by the insurer and the rest by the driver and the
owner. The owner is the 4th respondent herein. In appeal, the award
amount was enhanced to ` 1,16,000/- and the liability of the insurer
was fixed as ` 67,766/- upholding the contention of the insurer that
the liability is limited to what is covered by the Workmen’s
Compensation Act. The balance amount is now sought to be recovered
from the petitioner and the 4th respondent jointly and severally.
Exts.P1 and P2 are the revenue recovery notices issued to both. The
petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings on the ground that the
amounts should be recovered from the owner and not from the
petitioner, who is only the driver. I do not think that the petitioner’s
contention can be countenanced. The owner is only vicariously liable.
The primary liability is on the driver. It is because of his negligence
that the accident occurred. The owner is only vicariously liable.
Therefore, both are jointly and severally liable for the amount.
w.p.c.331/11 2
Revenue recovery proceedings are initiated against both also. That
being so, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge