J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission recommending to the Government to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakh to the first respondent herein on account of the unfortunate death of the husband of the first respondent in a road accident, which was allegedly caused on account of negligence by the PWD officials.

2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that, the first respondent had approached the Kerala State Human Rights Commission stating that the husband of the first respondent had met with an accident on 28.04.2013 at about 9.30 p.m. at night, while traveling along NH-47 (Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram stretch) near the Chinnakada Railway overbridge by falling off the road. It is submitted that the allegation of the first respondent is that the failure to provide barricades (on account of the negligence by the PWD authorities in replacing the barricade, which was damaged on account of an accident involving a KSRTC bus on 15.04.2013) is the cause of the death of the husband of the first respondent. It is submitted that, even in the facts of the present case, it is clear that the death of the husband of the first respondent did not take place on account of any negligence but was on account of the fact that the motorcycle being driven by the late husband of the first respondent had been rear-ended by a KSRTC bus. It is submitted that the first respondent had also filed O.P.(MV)No.1308 of 2015 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam where, the claim was that the accident and the consequent death of the husband of the first respondent occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL 15 8609. It is pointed out that O.P.(MV)No.1308 of 2015 has been disposed of on 21.01.2019 awarding compensation of Rs.43,27,088/- (Rupees Forty Three lakh Twenty Seven Thousand and Eighty Eight only) to the first respondent. It is submitted that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission also applied the principles in the Motor Vehicles Act for determining the amount of compensation that was recommended to be paid to the first respondent. It is submitted that there cannot be any parallel claim for compensation on account of the same accident and that the stand taken by the first respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is contrary to the stand taken before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that, even in the complaint filed before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, the first respondent had stated that it is suspected that the motorcycle driven by the late husband of the first respondent had been hit by another vehicle from behind. It is submitted that, at that time, it was not known to the first respondent that the motorcycle had been rear-ended by a KSRTC bus and the same fact came out only during investigation by the police.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, I am of the view that Ext.P3 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission cannot be sustained, in view of the subsequent developments. The finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P.(MV)No.1308 of 2015 (on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam) is that the late husband of the first respondent died in a motor accident owing to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KL 15 8609. The first respondent has also been awarded compensation of Rs.43,27,088/- (Rupees Forty Three lakh Twenty Seven Thousand and Eighty Eight only) by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. Obviously, in respect of the same matter, the first respondent cannot claim another amount of compensation from the State Government. In that view of the matter, Ext.P3 order is liable to be set aside.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and proceedings of the K