Allowed

V.P.Chandra Bose v. Executive Engineer

Kerala HC8 Nov 2013WP(C)/9801/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner damaged an electricity post and switchboard while driving negligently. The State Electricity Board sought recovery of compensation through revenue recovery proceedings. The Court quashed the notices, allowing the Board to pursue recovery via the Motor Vehicles Act and Claim Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P2 and P3 revenue recovery notices issued by the second respondent at the instance of the first respondent are quashed.

V.P.Chandra Bose Vs Executive Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/17TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 9801 of 2013 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.P.CHANDRA BOSE VALAYAMKANDAM, KUMARAKOM SOUTH P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 563.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.P.K.VINOD KUMAR SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON SMT.SMITHA MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PALLOM, KOTTAYAM 686 007.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, SC-KSEB

¶13

R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 9801 of 2013 (A)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 21.5.12 BEFORE THE IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1, KOTTAYAM.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 9.11.12 U/S.7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9.11.12 PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT OF LAND U/S. 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.3.13 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶23

R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SITE MAHAZAR

¶24

R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM ON 1.10.2012

¶25

R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DB 5/DW-16/2012-13/487 DATED 16.10.2012

//True copy//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Shg/

V. CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶30

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.9801 OF 2013

¶31

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2013

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

A post carrying electricity supply line with an AB

¶34

Switch Board was damaged when it was hit by the car owned and driven by the petitioner. The petitioner has concededly paid a fine of Rs.1,000/- pursuant to the order of the court of the Magistrate for negligent driving. That fine is the maximum amount that could be imposed for interrupting free supply of electricity under Section 25A of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

¶35

The compensation for the loss suffered to the electric post and the switch board has to be separately recovered from the petitioner. The Kerala State Electricity Board for that purpose has to necessarily invoke the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A claim petition would lie before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the owner of the property (the Electricity Board) to recover the compensation.

¶36

W.P.(C) No.9801 OF 2013

¶37

-2-

¶38

The petitioner contends that any such compensation awarded by the Tribunal would be indemnified by the insurer. There is no justification for the Electricity Board to unilaterally resort to revenue recovery proceedings for realisation of a sum of Rs.37,458/- towards the damages allegedly caused.

¶39

Exts.P2 & P3 revenue recovery notices issued by the second respondent at the instance of the first respondent are therefore quashed leaving open the remedy to recover the damages by resort to the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶40

The writ petition is allowed. No Costs.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶43

Shg/

V.P.Chandra Bose v. Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Chandra Bose v. Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aringath Kelan Vs Smt.Ishitha Roy

Sevashram Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

E.K.Vasumathi Vs the Tahsildar(Rr) Tly. and Others

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs R.K.Santhosh Kumar

M. Malathi Vs the Special Tahsildar (La)

P.C. Joseph Vs Village Officer