IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 11838 of 2002(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- B.SREEDHARAN NAIR,DRIVER,FOREST PROTECTION FORCE,MALAYATTOOR DIVISION,MALAYATTOOR. BY ADVOCATE MR.ABOOBACKER PULICKOOL MR.GHOSH YOHANNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,FLYING SQUARD, IDUKKI. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,MALAYATTOOR, KODANADU. 3. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR,VIGILANCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR,CARDAMOM HILL RESEARCH,SPECIAL SQUARD,KERALA FOREST DEPARTMENT, DEVIKULAM. 5. SECRETARY,FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.20447/2002 IN OP. NO.11838/2002 Dismissed 21.01.2009 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 22.1.01 ISUED BY IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 20.7.01. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) NO.298/91 FIN. DT. 27.3.91. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY CHIEF CONSERVATOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 28.1.02. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CSI 143/93 DT. 22.1.01. R1(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 28.1.2002. R1(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P5 53092/96 DT. 28.1.2002. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss 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.