IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 167 of 2009() ---------------------------------- OPMV.397/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, VAZHACHAL DIVN.CHALAKUDY. BY SPL.GOVT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH (FOREST) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------------------ VINCENT,S/O MATHEW, ARAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 167 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in OP(MV) No.397/2003. The claimant, who was a Deputy Forest Range Officer, while travelling in the vehicle belonging to the Forest Department, sustained injury in an accident on account of the negligence alleged and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.25,100/- and directed respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amount jointly and severally. It is against that decision, the first respondent has come up in appeal. 2. It is contended that the petition filed with a Divisional Forest Officer on party array cannot be maintained for the reasons that the vehicle belongs to the State Goverment. It is for the first respondent to plead in the written statement that who is the person responsible vicariously for the act of the driver/registered owner of the vehile. If there are any departmental circulars or directions regarding the same, it was for the first respondent to highlight the same before the tribunal. Therefore, I am inclined to M.A.C.A. No. 167 of 2009 2 grant an opportunity if necessary to implead the appropriate party for the purpose of disposing of the case. Secondly, it is contended that the department has given special leave to the claimant and he had been never deprived of the amount and so the amount granted towards the loss of earning is not correct. If special leave as comtemplated under the Kerala Service Rules are given then there will not be any loss and it is normally granted under execptional circumstances mentioned in the appendix to the Kerala Service Rules. The appellant's counsel wants highlight before the court for consideration regarding the negligence. It is contended that being a Deputy Forest Officer having control of the vehicle, he should have directed the driver to move carefully. I am not prepared to hold that a person travelling in a vehicle would have the control over the driver in how to drive the vehicle. So I am not inclined to direct the court to consider the question of negligence again and so far as it relates to the amount granted on the other heads that also can be considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside for the limited purpose of impleading the proper party, if M.A.C.A. No. 167 of 2009 3 necessary, who shall be liable to pay the compensation for which the first respondent shall furnish the particulars. The quantum also can be reconsidered and orders be passed in the light of the discussions made in the previous paragraphs of the judgment. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.10.2010 and since the claimant has chosen to appear before the court, the appellant is to take out a notice for appearance, for the proper disposal of the case. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE ln