Dismissed

The Commissioner of Customs v. Thulaseedharan

Kerala HC10 Jun 2014MACA/1969/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a motor accident claims appeal where the Commissioner of Customs challenged the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a traffic accident. The Court examined the appellants' claim of sovereign immunity regarding the use of a government vehicle for drug raids and dismissed the argument as inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

The appeals and Cross Objection are dismissed; appellants shall deposit the award amount before the Tribunal within two months.

The Commissioner of Customs Vs Thulaseedharan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 1969 of 2012 ()

¶6

OPMV 1179/2010 of M.A.C.T.,KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, C.R BUILDING, IS. PRESS ROAD, COCHIN

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:

¶11

THULASEEDHARAN, S/O SANKARAN, 228-A, VALATHUNGAL PADINJATTATHU - II VALATHUNGAL C (KANJIRAMATTATHU VEEDU) ERAVIPURAM - 691 011

¶12

MADUSOODANAN, DEPARTMENT DRIVER, S/O NEELAKANTAN NAIR, 13/2377 GREESHAMAM, KILLI, KOLLODE P.O, KATTAKADA 695571

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

dl/

¶16

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶17

¶18

M.A.C.A. Nos.1969 & 1972 of 2012

¶19

and Cross Objection No.9 of 2013 `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

¶20

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2014

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶23

The first respondent in O.P.(MV) No.1179/2010

¶24

and O.P.(MV) No.1187/2010 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam has come up in appeal. The first respondent before the Tribunal is the registered owner of a Qualis car bearing registration No.KL-07AQ-6578. The 2^nd respondent herein was the duly appointed driver of the said vehicle. The first respondents in these two MACAs are the claimants before the Tribunal.

¶25

The claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal by alleging that while the said petitioners were riding on the motor bike bearing registration No.KL-02AA-7503 from

¶26

North to South through the eastern side of Ayathil –

¶27

M.A.C.A.1969&1972/12 & CO.9/13

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

Mevaram bypass road, the aforesaid Qualis car being driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life from the opposite direction came to the wrong side of the road and knocked down the petitioners thereby they sustained injuries.

¶30

The appellant herein, in whose name the said Qualis car was registered, along with the 2^nd respondent driver, has filed written objections in both the cases by taking up inter alia the following contentions:-

¶31

(i) The said car did never involve in any accident.

¶32

(ii) The petitioners came in a rash and negligent

¶33

manner from a byroad and entered in the bypass road and on seeing the Qualis car abruptly, they fell down.

¶34

(iii) On seeing the motor bike coming from the byroad the 2^nd respondent stopped the car.

¶35

On going through the said contentions, it is

¶36

evident that the case forwarded by the appellant herein before the Tribunal was that no accident had occurred as

¶37

M.A.C.A.1969&1972/12 & CO.9/13

¶38

: 3 :

¶39

alleged by the petitioners and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to compensate the petitioners who sustained injuries.

¶40

The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence in the matter, allowed O.P.(MV) No.1187/2010 and arrived at an amount of ₹27,000/- as compensation to the petitioner in the said case. Further, the learned Tribunal allowed O.P.(MV) No.1179/2010 and arrived at a compensation of ₹16,000/- to the petitioner therein. Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 01.11.2010 in O.P.(MV) No.1187/2010 and from 30.10.2010 in O.P.(MV) No.1179/2010 was also allowed, thereby ordering that the amount should be deposited within three months by the appellant herein, failing which, the appellant would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶41

The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1187/2010 has filed

¶42

a Cross Objection as he is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.

¶43

Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of

¶44

M.A.C.A.1969&1972/12 & CO.9/13

¶45

: 4 :

¶46

India for the appellants and the learned counsel for the first respondent in both the MACAs as well as the cross objector in Cross Objection No.9/2013.

¶47

The present stand taken by the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the appellant is that the appellant as well as the 2^nd respondent herein were in the lawful exercise of a sovereign function as they were in search of drug pedallers involved in Narcotic Substances. It is argued that as the 2^nd respondent was the department driver, who was on official duty and was driving the vehicle as a part of his duty, the State has no vicarious liability in the matter as the duty was in discharge of sovereign functions. There is little scope for the said argument. The appellant, who is the first respondent, was sued in his capacity as the registered owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle was not covered by an insurance policy. Therefore, it is the duty of the registered owner of the vehicle to compensate the persons who sustain injuries in the accident caused by the

¶48

M.A.C.A.1969&1972/12 & CO.9/13

¶49

: 5 :

¶50

said vehicle. The vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life by the 2^nd respondent, which had resulted in the incident. A person, who has committed rashness and negligence in driving the vehicle and has caused the accident, cannot be heard to say that he was exercising any sovereign functions. The registered owner of the vehicle, who has employed such a driver, cannot take shelter by contending that the accident had occurred in the course of discharge of some sovereign functions and, therefore, the registered owner of the vehicle is not liable to compensate the injured persons.

¶51

It has to be noted that at first, before the Tribunal the contention of the appellant was that there was no such accident at all. When it was proved that the vehicle had involved in the accident, which had resulted in injuries to the rider and the pillion rider of a motor bike, who were keeping the correct side of the road, the appellants have presently come up with the present argument that they have got

¶52

M.A.C.A.1969&1972/12 & CO.9/13

¶53

: 6 :

¶54

sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity cannot be extended to these kinds of cases. The liability in the present matter on the State is not merely a vicarious liability in some wrongs committed by an official of the State, whereas the claim as such was on account of the injuries caused to the two third parties on account of the rash and negligent driving of a government official and the liability cast upon the State herein is in the form of a liability on the part of the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.

¶55

On going through the Cross Objection, this Court does not find any merit in it. The Tribunal has considered the evidence and all the matters in its correct perspective and has arrived at the correct conclusion with regard to the compensation payable to the first respondent in both these appeals. The impugned common judgment does not call for any interference at all. Both these appeals as well as the Cross Objection are devoid of merits, and are only to be dismissed, and I do so.

¶56

M.A.C.A.1969&1972/12 & CO.9/13

¶57

: 7 :

¶58

In the result, both these appeals as well as the Cross Objection are dismissed. The appellants shall deposit the

¶59

award amount before the Tribunal within two months. No

¶60

order as to costs.

¶61

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶62

aks/11/06

¶63

// True Copy //

¶64

PA to Judge

The Commissioner of Customs v. Thulaseedharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Customs v. Thulaseedharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/S Hotel Panchavady

State of Kerala Vs a. Durairaj

Anuja Abdul Manaf Vs Baiju

A.Gopalan Nair Vs Kumbakkara Raman Nair

C.P.Saraswathy Vs C.P.Venugopal

M/S.Glassco Vs the Regional Director, Esi Corporation