IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 144 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.955/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, VAZHACHAL DIVN.CHALAKUDY. SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.P. PRAKASH. RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------ PREMADASAN S/O.SANKARAN, THAPURAKAL HOUSE, KATHOLIPALAMBU DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No. 144 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = == = DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in O.P. (MV) 955 of 2004. 2. The claimant, a Forest Guard, while travelling in a Forest jeep driven by the first respondent, met with an accident resulting in injuries to him. It is stated that the first respondent driver had rashly negotiated a curve which resulted in the jeep hitting on a bund causing the accident. The respondents in the claim petition admitted the accident; but denied the allegation of rashness and negligence. So far as the Insurance Department is concerned, it is submitted that being an 'act only policy' it will not cover the passengers in a jeep. The Tribunal, after exhaustive consideration, awarded a sum of Rs. 57,300/- and directed Respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the amount. I am informed that the award was passed on 19.9.2008 and that the driver of the jeep had died on 21.10.2006, which means the finding had been entered against a dead person, which is really invalid in law and when such a finding is invalid in law, there cannot be any vicarious liability as well. So, it is necessary that the legal representatives MACA 144/2009 :2: of the driver are on the party array at least for the formality, though negligence cannot be attributed against them. The Tribunal did not advert to the question of negligence very seriously and simply basing on the charge sheet, found the driver negligent. On the contra, learned counsel for the Department would contend that the claimant himself had turned hostile and the criminal case has ended in acquittal. So, it is a matter where there must be proof regarding negligence. The Honourable Supreme Court as made it very clear that when a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is filed, it is incumbent upon the claimant to establish negligence. Similarly, learned counsel for the Department would contend before me that special leave was sanctioned to the injured without forfeiture of any income or other benefits available to him. If it is so, it may not be proper to compensate him for a loss which he is not likely to suffer in future as well. So it is also a mater to be considered. 3. It is true that the vehicle is registered in the name of the Divisional Forest Officer. But ultimately, it is a departmental vehicle, which is owned by the State. So, it is for the parties to consider whether at least the Chief Conservator of Forest and the State Government are made necessary parties to the proceedings. Unless the State is made liable, there cannot be disbursement of the amount from the departmental revenue for the MACA 144/2009 :3: reason that the vehicle belongs ultimately to the Government. Therefore, it is also a matter that has to be taken into consideration. I am making it very clear that I am not expressing any opinion regarding the merits or demerits of the case and only directing the court below to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and impleading necessary parties. 4. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with permission to the claimant to implead necessary parties and permitting both sides to adduce additional evidence, if any, both oral and documentary. The Tribunal shall make earnest attempt the for expeditious disposal of the case, in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the court below on 24.9.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-