Madras High Court
M.Rajesh Kannan vs The Director General Of Police on 3 December, 2021
W.P(MD).No.5090 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.5090 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.5072 of 2018
M.Rajesh Kannan ... 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
entire records relating to impugned order passed by the second
respondent dated 20.02.2018 in Ma.Aa.No.185/2018,
Na.Ka.No.K2/165/34929/2014 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sundarapandian
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Govt. Pleader
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5090 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioner was working as a Grade - I Police Constable in the
State Police Department. On 15.10.2013, while driving a TATA Spacio
bearing Registration No.TN-60 G-0281 in the capacity of a Police
Constable / Driver, the vehicle was involved in an accident with vehicle
bearing Registration No.TN-60 F-2910.
2.The occupants of the car were injured and a case came to
be registered in Crime No.42 of 2013. Claim petitions came to be filed by
the injured before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai in
M.C.O.P.Nos.23, 24 and 25 of 2014 seeking compensation.
3.The petitioner was acquitted from all criminal charges after a
full-fledged trial. Insofar as the M.C.O.Ps. are concerned, the Tribunal
directed that a sum Rs.14,85,483/-, be paid by the State Police
Department and the entire amount has been paid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5090 of 2018
4.A portion of the aforesaid amount ie., Rs.3,71,371/- 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5090 of 2018
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5090 of 2018
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
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.
03.12.2021
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.
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5090 of 2018
1.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.5090 of 2018
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
akv
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.(MD).No.5090 of 2018
03.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
