Kerala High Court
P.K.Raghavan vs The Secretary on 21 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 29519 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
P.K.RAGHAVAN,
S/O OTHENAN NAIR, PALATHRACHALIL MEETHALE VEEDU,
KUZHIKKAL, P.O.KAYANI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
ANEESH JOSEPH
DENNIS VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY,
THE OMBUDSMAN, FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE SECRETARY,MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY, MATTANNUR, KANNUR
DISTRICT-670702
BY ADV P.V.ANOOP, SC
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.BIMAL K.NATH-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.29519 of 2015
2
M A ABDUL HAKHIM, J
---------------------------------
WP(C) No.29519 of 2015
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st June, 2024
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner claims to be a friend of Sri Athikkal
Mohanan, a coconut climber, who died on 29.05.2007.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for protecting
the interest of the legal representatives of the deceased
Mohanan. According to the petitioner, the legal
representatives of the deceased Mohanan are entitled
to get Rs.1 lakh (one lakh only) out of the insurance
policy provided in Ext.P1 Order. According to the
petitioner Ext.P1 provides for taking insurance policy
for coconut climbers and other climbers. The deceased
Mohanan had submitted Ext.P4 application for taking
Insurance, but on account of the default on the part of
the 2nd respondent, the insurance premium was not
paid. The petitioner approached the Ombudsman for
Local Self Government Tribunal and the Ombudsman by
Ext.P9 order found that there are lapses on the part of
the 2nd respondent, but awarded only a compensation of
Rs.2000/- payable out of the pocket of the 2 nd
respondent to the legal representatives of the deceased
Mohanan. The said order was challenged by the
petitioner before this Court and this Court by Ext.P10
judgment set aside the order directing the
Ombudsman to consider the matter afresh, thereafter
the Ombudsman passed Ext.P11 order which is
impugned in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as
Counsel for the 2nd respondent. The pleadings and
documents reveal that the insurance policy was not
taken. According to the petitioner the insurance policy
was happened to be not taken on account of the lapses
on the part of the 2nd respondent. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner pointed out that the finding in Ext.P11
order that the legal representatives are not entitled for
compensation on account of the fact that the deceased
was not engaged in coconut climbing at the time of
death but he was carrying firewoods. He submitted
that this is not a matter to be enquired into by the
Ombudsman and it is a matter to be raised by the
Insurance Company and since the insurance policy was
not taken, there was no need to enter such a finding.
3. I find that the said submission of the Counsel for the
petitioner is sustainable. There was no need for the
Ombudsman to enter such a finding. The question is
whether the 2nd respondent is liable to compensate the
legal representatives of the deceased for his lapses in
making payment of the insurance premium. Even
avoiding the said finding, I am of the view that if the
then Secretary of the Municipality is responsible, he
ought to have been personally proceeded against by the
legal representatives of the deceased in a properly
instituted proceeding. Accordingly I find no merit in
this writ petition and I dismiss this writ petition.
Sd/-
M A ABDUL HAKHIM, Judge
jma
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29519/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.G.O.(M.S)
NO.54/2005/PLANNINTG DATED 25.8.05.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SRI.MOHANAN
DATED 13.6.2007.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF REPLY OF THEINFORMATION OFFICER DATED
17.7.2007.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SRI.MOHANAN ON
23.2.2006.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE IST RESPONDENT DATED 6.8.2007.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN O.P.NO.889 OF
2007 DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP 889/2007 OF THE IST
RESPONDENT DATED 24.10.2007.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O..NO.889 OF 2007 OF THE
IST RESPONDENT DATED 5.8.2008.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P.NO.889 OF 2007 OF THE
IST RESPONDENT DATED 18.9.2008.
EXHIBIT P10: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 33919/2008
DATED 28.11.2013.
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN DATED
23.3.2015.
