IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31181 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- T.M.RAGHUNATHAN, S/O.APPUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'VIVEK', KALPETTA NORTH, DRIVER, NATIONAL SAVINGS SCHEME, DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR SMT.ANITHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SAVINGS, FINANCE (NS) DEPARTMENT, GOLDEN JUBILEE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SAVINGS, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31181 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 10th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Driver in the service of the State Government. While he was employed in the office of the Assistant Director, National Savings, Civil Station, Kalpetta, the Jeep which he was driving met with an accident. That led to the institution of O.P.(M.V)No.871 of 1994 by a pedestrian. By Ext.P1 award passed on 30-6-1998, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wyanad at Kalpetta awarded the sum of Rs.1,92,100/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition as compensation to the claimant. The petitioner, the driver of the Jeep and the Assistant Director of National Savings, were held jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation. The petitioner and the Assistant Director carried the matter in appeal to this Court as M.F.A.No.1403 of 1998. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 7-7-2003, the said appeal was dismissed. 2. By then, a portion of the compensation was deposited. The petitioner was in the meanwhile acquitted in the criminal case by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wyanad. Later, he moved the Government seeking waiver of the liability cast on him. By Ext.P5 order passed on 14-2-2005, the Government directed W.P.(C) No.31181 of 2008 2 that the petitioner and the Assistant Director of National Savings, need pay only Rs.30,000/- each towards their share of liability. Pursuant to the petitioner again moved the Government and the Government thereupon issued Ext.P6 order dated 19-5-2005 directing recovery of the sum of Rs.30,000/- from the petitioner in 40 monthly instalments of Rs.750/- each. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P6 and prays for a direction to the respondents to refund to him the sum of Rs.30,000/- that was recovered from him in instalments. 3. The petitioner relies on Ext.P7 order and Exts. P8 and P9 circulars to contend that he cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. Ext.P7 order and Exts.P8 and P9 circulars are issued by the State Government, directing all Heads of Offices to ensure that Government vehicles are duly insured with the United India Insurance Company. The petitioner submits that Exts.P7, P8 and P9 were issued before the accident took place on 10-8-1994 and that he was held liable to pay the compensation only because the direction issued by the State Government that all Government vehicles should be duly insured was not complied with. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Sri.P.K.Ramkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner W.P.(C) No.31181 of 2008 3 contends that if the Head of Office/Department had complied with the directions in Exts.P7 to P9 and duly insured the Jeep which he was driving, he would not have had to pay any amount as compensation. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner cannot be penalised for the laches and omissions on the part of the Head of Office/Department. In these circumstances, the decision taken by the Government to recover the sum of Rs.30,000/- from the petitioner cannot be sustained, it is submitted. 5. Ext.P1 award which has become final and which binds the petitioner, holds him jointly and severally liable to pay the sum of Rs.1,92,100/- with 12% interest from the date of petition till the date of payment. The accident took place on 10-8-1994. The claim for compensation was disposed of by Ext.P1 award passed on 30- 6-1998 and it was upheld by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment dated 7-7-2003. Going by the award the petitioner’s liability would have been in excess of Rs.1,00,000/-. Taking note of his request, the Government by Ext.P5 decided to limit it to Rs.30,000/-. The petitioner again moved the Government for exempting him from making payment. The Government did not agree to the said request, but directed that recovery will not be made in lump but in 40 instalments of Rs.750/-. Ext.P6 order issued in that regard is dated 19-5-2005. Going by the date on which Ext.P6 was issued W.P.(C) No.31181 of 2008 4 it is evident that recovery of the sum of Rs.30,000/- would have been effected by now. The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P6 after nearly three years and 5 months. The petitioner has not explained the reason for the delay in challenging Exts.P5 and P6. He however, relies on Exts.P7 to P9 to contend that he was held liable, because the vehicle was not duly insured. In my considered opinion, the petitioner who did not challenge Exts.P5 and P6 orders in time and complied with the directions issued therein cannot at this distance of time, rely on Exts.P7 to P9 and seek recovery of the sum of Rs.30,000/- recovered from him in instalments. The claim made by the petitioner is also highly belated. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bps