IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1529 of 2008(C) ----------------------------------- OPMV.489/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .............................................. APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRICHUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BALAN, S/O.RAMAN, PANDAVATH HOUSE, P.O.ERAIYAMKUDY, KALLUR THEKKUMMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. K.L.JOSE, S.I. OF POLICE, S/O.LONAPPAN, KANJOOKARAN HOUSE, NEAR ST.JAMES HOSPITAL, P.O.CHALAKUDY. (DIED LRS IMPLEADED) *3. SMT.JAIN JOSE, W/O K.L.JOSE, KANJOOKARAN HOUSE, NEAT ST.JAMES HOSPITAL, P.O.CHALAKKUDY. *4. SMT.ELVIN JOSE, D/O K.L.JOSE, KANJOOKARAN HOUSE, NEAT ST.JAMES HOSPITAL, P.O.CHALAKKUDY. *LRS OF DECEASED R2 IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 29/5/2009 IN I.A.NO.433/2009. ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT FOR R1 SRI.P.V.BABY FOR R3 & R4 SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH FOR R3 & R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1529 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in OP(MV)No.489/2003. The claimant while he was being taken to the police station by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mala in a jeep, due to the rash and negligent driving of the sub Inspector of Police, the claimant sustained injuries. The first respondent in the claim petition is the Sub Inspector of Police, respondents 2 and 3 are the Superintendent of Police and Director General of Police and the 4th respondent is the Kerala State Insurance Department. The Tribunal on a consideration of the materials fixed the compensation at Rs.53,000/= and directed respondents 1, 3 and 4 jointly and severally to pay the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the said decision, respondents 2 to 4 in the claim application have come up in appeal. 2. It has to be stated that really there is an inter se : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1529 OF 2008 dispute between respondents 1 and 2 on one hand and respondent 3 on the other hand and unless it is admitted that the terms of the policy does cover the risk of a person traveling in the jeep there cannot be an agreement in between them. The contention appears to be that, the status of the claimant is that of a gratuitous passenger in a jeep not covered by the policy. Therefore, it is not desirable to consider the case of the appellants together and therefore I suo motu transpose Kerala State Insurance Department as additional 5th respondent in this case. Respondents 3 and 4 in the appeal are the legal representatives of the deceased Sub Inspector of Police. The question that arises for determination is whether respondent No.3 who represents the Government as the owner of the jeep is liable for the compensation and secondly whether the insurance policy covers the risk of the person who had sutained injuries in the accident. When one is an employee, there is an employee employer relationship. The employer is vicariously liable for the act of the employee and therefore in a motor accident case, : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1529 OF 2008 both of them will be jointly and severally liable. The question was considered whether the Sub Inspecotr who drove the jeep at the time of the accident had a driving licence or not. The Tribunal found that there is no charge for driving the vehicle without licence and it is also submitted by the counsel appearing for the legal representatives that he had a valid driving licence. As stated by the Tribunal, the Sub Inspector of Police, who is expected to enforce law and order machinery in a particular area should have the licence and the learned counsel had made available before me a copy of the licence available which authorises the deceased Sub Inspector to drive a light motor vehicle. Jeep is only a light motor vehicle and it is not a commercial jeep but only a department jeep and therefore there is a valid driving licence for the deceased driver. So, the question of negligence and the quantum does not call for any interference. It has to be held that the Director General of Police as well as additional respondents 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable for the claim. It has to be stated : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.1529 OF 2008 that the liability of respondents 3 and 4 would be only with respect to the property or assets which they have inherited from deceased Sub Inspector and not from their personal property. 3. Then about the crucial question that is regarding the coverage of the policy. There is a contention that the policy does not cover the risk of the person who had travelled in the jeep. The policy is not produced and the conditions are not produced. In order to determine that question, consideration of the policy is essential and therefore for the said purpose, the matter has to go back to the Tribunal to consider the question whether the insurance department is liable for the amount. 4. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as follows: 1. It is found that the Director General of Police, Trivandrum and the legal representatives of deceased R1 in the claim petition are liable and the limit of liability of the legal representatives would be only on the assets which they had received from the deceased person and not from their individual property. : 5 : M.A.C.A.NO.1529 OF 2008 2. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the purpose of considering whether the policy issued in favour of the vehicle covers the risk of the person who had travelled in the vehicle. For that purpose, all concerned are permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Since the matter is of the year 2001 and the claimant is shuttled from pillar to post, I direct the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 13.11.2009. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl