IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28245 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., (MILMA), ERNAKULAM DAIRY, P.B. NO.33, TRIPUNITHURA 682 301, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 584. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIKUZHI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI, PIN 685 606. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIKUZHI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI, PIN 685 606. 4. K.K.VARGHESE, KANJIKUZHI, CUTTING, CHELACHUVDU, IDUKKI, PIN 685 602. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.R.SHYAM KUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.28245/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE IST INFORMATION REPORT. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.D 23.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SIT RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23.8.2011 SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 23.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a):- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.18.7.2011 FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. R4(b):- COPY OF THE PETITION DT.D NIL FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28245 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (MILMA) have approached this court seeking police protection for removal of their vehicle KL/7-BH9954 which was involved in an accident and overturned into the property belonging to the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent and his allies are raising obstructions in the matter of removal of the vehicle from the 4th respondent's property. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein he contends that very heavy damages have been sustained to the 4th respondent’s property on account of the manner in which the vehicle turned into his property. They have complained against the officer who investigated the crime pertaining to the motor accident that proper mahazar was not prepared showing the extent of damages sustained. Ext.R4(a) produced by them is a copy of petition which the 4th respondent W.P.(C).28245/11 -2- submitted to the investigating officer. Sri.Devidas learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the 4th respondent will agree for removal of the vehicle provided the police are directed to prepare a proper mahazar showing the extent of damages sustained. He also submitted that appropriate direction should be issued to the insurance surveyors for assessing the damages. He submitted further that the petitioner MILMA be directed to pay interim damages as the 4th respondent is in an impecunious situation. 2. Having considered the submissions addressed by the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned counsel for 4th respondent and the senior Government Pleader Mr.C.R.Syamkumar, we are of the view that no direction can be passed now to the officer investigating Ext.P1 crime to take action on Ext.R4(a) as the investigation is completed and final report is already submitted. The 4th respondent will have to take the initiative to have the damages assessed by a competent surveyor so that the insurance company who have issued policy in respect of the offending vehicle will be able to pay adequate compensation which will be paid over to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is directed to take steps to have the damages W.P.(C).28245/11 -3- assessed by a competent surveyor within a period of 7 days from today. Whether or not the survey is conducted and report is submitted within the said period there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to afford protection to the petitioner to remove the vehicle from the 4th respondent’s property within 10 days from today. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb