Petitioner claimed Rs. 1 crore compensation for injuries sustained due to negligence by a 4th respondent while riding a scooter. A civil suit for the same incident resulted in a decree of Rs. 7 lakhs, which is now under appeal before this Court. The court held that since the private law remedy is pending, the public law remedy cannot be entertained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6834 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
KUNJURAMAN PILLAI
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, GOKULAM VEEDU, KAREEPRA
VILLAGE, KUZHIMATHIKADU P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM., PIN - 691506
BY ADVS.
V.JAYAPRADEEP
ARSHIJA T.P.
LILIN LAL
O.A.NURIYA
D.S.LOKANATHAN
ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV
MERIN ROSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION, SANCHAR BHAVAN 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI ., PIN - 1100012 BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION, SANCHAR BHAVAN 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI ., PIN - 1100013 THE GENERAL MANAGER (T.D.) BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD, DISTRICT OFFICE, NEAR ARCHANA- ARADHANA THEATRE, KOLLAM ., PIN - 6910124 MOHANACHANDRAN @ MOHANAN PILLAI AGED 61 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, LINE MAN/TELEPHONE MECHANIC, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, BSNL OFFICE,NEDUMONCAVU, NEDUMONCAVU P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT-2-
W.P.(C). No. 6834 of 2023
ASWATHY BHAVAN, MUNNAMMOODU, VAKKANADU WARD,
KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 691506
BY ADV MATHEWS K.PHILIP KALAPPURACKAL PHILIPOSE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.S.MANU, DSGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
W.P.(C). No. 6834 of 2023
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
W.P.(C) No. 6834 of 2023
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2023
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents to give a compensation of Rupees 1 Crore to the petitioner, within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ii. Dispense with the filing of the translation of the vernacular documents. And
iii. Any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction which this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this Case, and award Costs of this Writ Petition to the Petitioner.” (sic)
to respondents to give a compensation of Rupees one crore to the
petitioner. It is the submission of the petitioner that he got injured due to the negligence committed by the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent
is his employer. The petitioner is an ayurvedic medical practitioner.
While riding his scooter on the fateful day, he got entangled in the
-4-
W.P.(C). No. 6834 of 2023
loose telephone cable negligently left across the road by the 4th respondent. The petitioner got very serious injuries including, cerebral edema, sub-arachnoids hemorrhage, hierologic contusion (L) temporal region, fracture to clavicle, fracture to 8th and 9th ribs and right brachial plexus injury affecting the brain and other parts of the body. The District Medical Board certified that the petitioner’s disability is 45%.
-5-
W.P.(C). No. 6834 of 2023
compensation for the injuries sustained to him in the same incident. Hence, this writ petition.
down by the Apex Court in Nilabati Behara’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Here is a case where, the petitioner filed a suit for compensation before the civil court and originally the suit was dismissed and thereafter, an appeal
-6-
W.P.(C). No. 6834 of 2023
was filed. The appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower court was set aside by remanding the case for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the suit was decreed as prayed in the plaint. Thereafter an appeal is filed by the respondents and the same is pending before this Court. A conditional stay order is also passed by this Court as evident by Ext.R3(a). In such circumstances, at this distance of time, the petitioner cannot avail the public law remedy also for the same set of facts. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the petitioner is free to file Cross Objection in the pending appeal, if the law permits for the same.
Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, this writ petition need not be entertained. Hence, the writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
das
-7-
W.P.(C). No. 6834 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6834/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit.P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
27.08.2022 IN O.S 304/2010 OF SUB
COURT,KOTTARAKKARA
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit -R3(a)copy of order in IA 1/2022 in RFA
No.362/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for compensation is maintainable when the petitioner has already filed a civil suit for damages on the same incident which is currently pending as an appeal before this Court.
Whether the dictum in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa regarding public law remedies for compensation applies where the private law remedy is already subsisting in the Appellate stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nilabati Behera Alias Lalita Behera v. State of OrissaReferred¶41
Nilabati Behera Alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa [(1993) 2 SCC 746] · Who else cites this
Kunjuraman Pillai
Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director
The General Manager (T.D) Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd
Mohanachandran @ Mohanan Pillai
P.V. Kunhikrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court