Madras High Court
C.Shekkilar vs The Director General Of Police on 3 December, 2021
W.P(MD).No.5089 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:03.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.(MD).No.5089 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.5071 of 2018
C.Shekkilar ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the enire
records relating to impugned order passed by the second respondent
dated 20.02.2018 in Ma.Aa.No.184/2018, Na.Ka.No.K2/495/34929/2014
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sundarapandian
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Govt. Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5089 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioner was working as a Head Constable in the State Police
Department. On 24.04.2011, while driving a Bolera Jeep bearing
Registration No.TN-60 G-0331 in the capacity of a Police Constable /
Driver, the vehicle was involved in an accident with a two wheeler.
2. The rider and the pillion rider were injured and a case came to
be registered in Crime No.132 of 2011. Claim petitions came to be filed
by the injured before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai in
M.C.O.P.No.1174 of 2011 and 1176 of 2011 seeking compensation.
3. The criminal case was closed as 'Mistake of Fact'. Insofar as the
M.C.O.Ps. are concerned, the Tribunal directed that a sum Rs.3,30,768/-,
be paid by the State Police Department and the entire amount has been
paid.
4. A portion of the aforesaid amount ie., Rs.82,692/- was thereafter
sought to be recovered from and out of the salary of the petitioner on a
monthly basis. This order has been challenged by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5089 of 2018
5. As far as recovery of compensation paid to an accident victim is
concerned, the position stands settled by a series of decisions of this
Court, the earliest being decision dated 07.07.1999 in W.P.No.11002 of
1999. A Division Bench of this Court deprecated the action of the State
Department in recovering compensation awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal from the driver of the vehicle, as only the employer is
duty bound in law to pay the compensation amount. The recovery of
compensation from the employee / driver is, they held, wholly
misconceived.
6. The aforesaid order of the Division Bench has been followed in
W.P.No.17856 of 2008, allowing the case of a similarly placed employee
by order dated 22.08.2008 and setting aside the recovery ordered as
against the driver of the police vehicle. The aforesaid order has been
confirmed by the Division Bench in the case of Sevugaperumal v.
Superintendent of Police (2009 (2) MLJ 849) applied yet again in
W.P.No.4428 of 2006 by order dated 23.07.2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5089 of 2018
7. It would be appropriate to extract the observation of the
Division Bench in the case of Sevugaperumal, at paragraph No.14 to the
following effect:-
“14. Before us, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has cited two judgments in order to show that in
similar cases the Courts have held that compensation
amount has to be paid by the department or by the
employer concerned. Reliance was first placed on the
judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in the
case of R.Nagendra Boopathi v. Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office, Salem, decided on 22.8.2008 passed
in W.P.No.17856 of 2008. From the facts of that case, it
appears that there was a mechanical failure of the vehicle
involved and as a result of which there was an accident.
Apart from that it also appears in that case that the driver
of the vehicle, whose official duty was to drive the said
vehicle, was a party before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal and the Tribunal exonerated the driver. ..........
The Division Bench in the above cited decision held
that if the police vehicle is driven by a driver of the
Department and caused the accident, the driver cannot be
held liable for the compensation paid or part thereof, and
if a person has driven the vehicle, who was not the driver,
the department can recover part of the compensation paid
to the victims.”
8. Thus, there is absolutely no justification for the State Police
department to initiate recovery as has been done in the present case. A
distinction has been made by the Division Bench in regard to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5089 of 2018
recovery made from the employee/driver of that Department itself and
recovery in the case of any other person who was not the driver, holding
that in the latter case, the Department can recover part of the
compensation paid to the victims.
9. This Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set
aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
03.02.2021
Index :Yes
Internet:Yes
akv
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5089 of 2018
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
akv
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni.
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.(MD).No.5089 of 2018
03.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
