IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 10808 of 2006(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.NARAYANAN, AGED 52, S/O.KRISHNAN, ATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAMPUR P.O. MALAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES (G.W.) DEPARETMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, (G.W.)DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, (G.W.) DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 10808/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.3.2000 IN OPMV NO.2178/03. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.9.2000 IN IA 2439/2000 IN OPMV 2178/03. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 9.8.2001 BEARING NO.15516/D3/2000. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 25.11.1998 BEARING NO. P(3)6889/98 EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.11.1994 IN C.C.NO.83/93 BEFORE THE C.J.M. COURT, MANJERI. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.5.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION DATED 16.1.2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 4.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.2006. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.3.06. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 10808 OF 2006-J ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner is a driver under the respondents. While driving a lorry bearing registration No.KLL 9075, it met with an accident at 3.30 p.m on 4.3.1993. In that accident one Mr.Saidali alias Saidalavi was fatally injured and he breathed his last. His mother Smt.Rukhiya filed O.P.(MV) No.2178/1993 against the petitioner and others before the M.A.C.T., Manjeri, claiming compensation for the death of her son. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and an award was passed for an amount of Rs.1,46,000/-. An amount of Rs.3500/- was also awarded towards costs. The petitioner and the Assistant Executive Engineer concerned, the 2nd respondent in the claim petition alone were made liable to pay the amount awarded. So, the petitioner filed a review petition. The same was allowed by the Tribunal, by Ext.P2 order, making the State Government also liable to pay the amount. The petitioner submits, the vehicle was not covered by a valid insurance WPC 10808/06 2 policy. The 3rd respondent herein was the custodian of the vehicle. It was his duty to insure the vehicle in time. Only because of his lapses, the petitioner is made personally liable. Otherwise, the insurance company or the State Insurance Department, as the case may be, would have paid the award amount. In support of his submission regarding the liability of the custodian of the vehicle to insure the vehicle in time, the petitioner relies on Ext.P3 circular issued by the Government and also an earlier circular issued on 25.11.1998, which is produced as Ext.P4. The petitioner was charge-sheeted by the Edavanna Police for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the I.P.C. But, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, by Ext.P5 judgment, acquitted him. Later, the petitioner was served with a memo, proposing to recover a portion of the amount awarded as per Ext.P1 award of the M.A.C.T. In the execution proceedings, the Government paid the entire amount due under the award. Thereafter, it took steps to recover one-third of it from the petitioner. For that the memo was issued. To the said memo dated 15.4.2002, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply. He was served with a further notice on 3.1.2003, calling upon him to show cause why WPC 10808/06 3 the amount should not be recovered from his salary. He submitted Ext.P7 reply dated 16.1.2003. The Government, finally, issued Ext.P8 communication dated 4.2.2006, as per which one-third of the amount was to be recovered from the petitioner. The said communication was issued by the Government to the Director, Ground Water Department, under whom the petitioner is working. Pursuant to it, the Director issued Ext.P9 communication to the District Officer of the Ground Water Department, ordering to recover the said amount from the petitioner. Thereupon, the District Officer served Ext.P10 communication on him, forwarding the letter of the Government as also that of the Director. The petitioner challenges Exts.P8 to P10 communications. He submits, for the non-renewal of the insurance policy in time, the custodian of the vehicle was responsible. The said officer was allowed to retire without fastening any liability on him. The petitioner is a poor driver and therefore, he may not be saddled with the liability. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned communications. It is also pointed out that going by clause WPC 10808/06 4 (i) of Ext.P3 circular, the driver of the vehicle is also equally liable for the non-renewal of the insurance policy. Therefore, the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the liability, it is submitted. 3. The petitioner is handling the papers of the vehicle every day. Therefore, he must be aware whether the term of the insurance policy has expired and it is remaining without renewal. Further, the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner. Though he is acquitted by the criminal court, the finding of the M.A.C.T in Ext.P1 that the accident took place owing to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, has become final. Therefore, if the petitioner is made liable for one-third of the amount paid by the Government, I find nothing illegal or irregular about that. But, the petitioner points that from the custodian the balance amount was not recovered and the said person was allowed to retire without paying anything. It is a matter between the Government and the said officer. The petitioner is made liable only for one-third of the amount. Further, the Government can at any time take revenue recovery steps against the officer who retired, subject, of course, to the limitation, if any, prescribed in the Rules. WPC 10808/06 5 But, the omission of the Government to recover the amount from somebody will not absolve the petitioner. The petitioner submits, he is due to retire on 30.11.2008. If that be so, the amount found due as per the impugned proceedings may be recovered from the D.C.R.G payable to the petitioner. In the result, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 17th October, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/