IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 23252 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KESAVAN.C, TRACTOR DRIVER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AGRICULTURE), MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AGRICULTURE), MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AGRICULTURE), KASARAGOD. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KASARAGOD-671 121. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.23252/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN O.P(MV) 734 OF 2000 EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.8.2007 IN M.A.C.A.1692 OF 2005 EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE TO THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KASARAGOD. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION R.P.NO.635 OF 2010 IN M.A.C.A. 1692 OF 2005 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.23252 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Driver in Government service. The tractor driven by him met with an accident on 3.5.2000 causing injuries to Sri.Krishna Maniyani, a coolie working in Galimukha Cashew Project. He thereupon filed O.P.(MV)No.734 of 2000 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasargod. The petitioner was the first respondent in the said application. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Agriculture), Kasargod, the petitioner's superior officer and the insurer of the vehicle were the second and third respondents. By Ext.P1 award passed on 14.10.2004 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded to the claimant the sum of Rs.33,000/- as compensation together with interest and costs. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount. The insurer challenged the award by filing M.A.C.A.No.1692 of 2005. In that appeal the claimant was the first respondent, the petitioner herein was the second respondent and the Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agriculture), Kasargod, was the third respondent. By Ext.P2 W.P(C).No.23252 of 2010 -:2:- judgment delivered on 3.8.2007 a learned single Judge of this Court held that the policy issued by the appellant in the appeal does not cover the passengers. The learned single Judge accordingly held that the owner is bound to pay the compensation. In the operative portion of Ext.P2 judgment, this Court had directed that the second respondent owner shall pay the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Thereupon the superior officer of the petitioner issued Ext.P5 note calling upon him to pay the amount awarded as compensation. Ext.P5 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the direction in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court was to the owner of the vehicle to satisfy the award and that the finding in Ext.P2 judgment that the second respondent owner shall be liable to pay the compensation, does not cast on him the liability to pay the compensation as he is not the owner of the vehicle. 2. On a petition filed by the petitioner herein as R.P.No.635 of 2010, Ext.P2 judgment was reviewed and the operative portion of Ext.P2 judgment was modified. The operative portion of Ext.P2 judgment as modified reads as follows:- “In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. W.P(C).No.23252 of 2010 -:3:- The finding of the Tribunal that the first respondent sustained injuries on account of the negligence of the second respondent and he is entitled to get compensation of Rs.33,000/- is confirmed. But the award passed directing the insurer to pay that amount is modified. The third respondent owner in the appeal is liable to pay the compensation. The appellant is directed to satisfy the award amount and recover the amount from the third respondent owner by executing this judgment.” In the light of the order passed by this Court in R.P.No.635 of 2010, which order was passed after notice to and hearing the Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agriculture) Kasargod, the demand made in Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to succeed in the writ petition. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P5 and declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasargod in O.P. (MV)No.734 of 2000. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.23252 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 14th January, 2011