The petitioners are the mother, brother and sister of one Sri.Kunhabdulla, a soldier who died in a motor accident, at Patiala on 21.01.1982. He was knocked down by a speeding truck, causing fatal injuries to him. According to the petitioners, at the time of the accident the State of Punjab was a riot stricken area, not easily accessible to persons like the petitioners. Considering the situation prevailing there, it is alleged that even the dead body of the deceased was not brought to Kerala, but was buried at Patiala itself. The complaint of the petitioners is that, they have not received any compensation for the death of the deceased. According to them, the respondents are liable to compensate the petitioners, suitably.
2. As per Ext.P3 letter which was issued by the Administrative Officer of the Command to the Government Pleader at Patiala, directions had been issued to pursue the criminal case as well as action for recovery of compensation, vigorously since the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. In view of Ext.P3, according to the petitioners they believed that they would be suitably compensated.
3. Since no compensation amount was forthcoming, through an organisation called The Kerala State Ex-service League, the petitioners started efforts to obtain the death certificate as well as the accident cum wound certificate of deceased Sri.Kunhabdulla. After obtaining the necessary documents, they filed O.P.(M.V).No.2249 of 1999 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode claiming compensation for the death.
4. As per Ext.P1 award dated 15.09.2007, the claim of the petitioners was disallowed on the ground of inordinate delay. Though the petitioners had challenged Ext.P1 award before this Court in M.A.C.A.No.1515 of 2008, the said appeal was also dismissed on 05.02.2009 by Ext.P8 judgment. The petitioners thereafter sought for a review of Ext.P8. By Ext.P9 dated 28.08.2009, the review petition was also dismissed. The petitioners pursued the matter to the Honourable Supreme Court also. As per Ext.P10, the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Thus, the attempts of the petitioners to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to an end.
5. It is thereafter that, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming that the respondents are liable to compensate them for the death of their kin. According to Adv.Smt.C.G.Bindu who appears for the petitioners, the legal heirs of the deceased were not in a position to pursue matters before the Patiala Court. They had therefore reposed their entire faith in the respondents. They honestly believed that the respondents would pursue the claim with sincerity and would recover the compensation that is legitimately due to them. Though the wife of the deceased had initially joined the efforts of the petitioners, she later on lost interest for the reason that she got remarried and left the place. The 1st petitioner who is the aged mother, as well as the other petitioners are rightfully entitled to proper compensation for the death of Sri.Kunhabdulla. They had submitted Ext.P4 representation to the 2nd respondent and Ext.P6 to the President of India. However, no action has been taken on the said representations. Though Ext.P5 communication was received by them assuring that the representations would be considered on priority basis, it is contended that nothing has been heard in the matter thereafter. Therefore, the counsel appeals to the court for some relief in the matter of recovering compensation for the death of Sri.Kunhabdulla.
6. The Assistant Solicitor General of India appears for the respondents. A statement has been filed pointing out that the respondents have discharged their responsibilities as the employer of late Sri.Kunhabdulla. Since the accident had occurred outside, on the public road, the legal heirs of the deceased were entitled only to claim family pension. Such family pension had been granted to the wife of the deceased. However, the same was discontinued on her remarriage. Later on, the 1st petitioner and her husband, father and mother of the deceased had claimed the family pension in W.P.(C).No.32455/2004. As per Ext.P2 judgment their claim was found to be legitimate by this Court and was granted. Thus, the 1st petitioner is receiving the family pension even to this date. It is further contended that, the duty to claim compensation for the death of the deceased was on the legal heirs. However, no claim was preferred at the proper time and, for the said reason, the belated claim that was made by the petitioners was rejected. It is also pointed out that, the driver of the motor vehicle that caused the accident had been acquitted in the criminal case charged against him for want of evidence. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, compensation is payable only for death and accident during military action. Therefore, he seeks the dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Heard. It is not in dispute that late Sri.Kunhabdulla was a soldier designated as a Craftsman in the Indian Army. He died in a road accident that took place on 21.01.1982, at Patiala. Though belatedly, the petitioners had preferred their claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, the claim was preferred only in the year 1999. According to the petitioners, they could not prefer a claim immediately after the accident for the reason that they were not possessed of the necessary documents for maintaining such a claim. However, absolutely no reasons are stated as to why no action was initiated to obtain such documents, immediately after the death of the deceased. Even assuming that the State of Punjab was inaccessible to persons like the petitioners, one fails to understand why the documents could not have been obtained through correspondence. It is worth noticing that the wife of the deceased was living at Patiala along with the deceased. The personal belongings as well as the service benefits of the deceased would certainly have been received by wife of the deceased. There is absolutely no information as to what efforts were pursued by the petitioners to obtain the necessary documents for preferring a claim. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India points out that, the 2nd petitioner who is a Policeman had obtained all the necessary documents from the local Inspector of Police at Patiala shortly after the death. The above statement is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, the fact remains that efforts could have been pursued to obtain the necessary documents.
8. The petitioners had thereafter collected the necessary documents and had preferred a claim to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The said proceedings were taken up by way of successive appeals right up to the Honourable Supreme Court. The proceedings have culminated in Ext.P10. In the case of motor accidents, the statute prescribes the mode of claiming compensation from the persons responsible. When a specific remedy is provided and a Tribunal is constituted for the purpose of claiming and receiving compensation, the other remedies are barred. The petitioner having pursued the said specific remedy though unsuccessfully, is not entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, who are his employers. Article 226 is a discretionary remedy. The jurisdiction is being invoked more that 30 years after the death of the deceased. The respondents are the employers of the deceased and it cannot be said that they are liable to compensate the petitioners for the death that has occurred in a motor accident. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that their omission to take timely action to see that compensation was paid to the petitioner within a reasonable time has resulted in denial thereof to the petitioners, cannot be accepted. It is true that they had not responded to Ext.P4 and P6. However, that cannot be a ground for fastening a liability on them to pay compensation. For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV