Smt. Mehar Taj Vs Babu N

ALL ARE OLD RESIDENTS OF MEHABBOB NAGAR, SIRA TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF VADDARAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. M.B. RYAKHA., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

BABU N, S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.201/B, WEST COLONY, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶27

THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GEN INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE AT BALAJI TOWERS, 1^ST FLOOR, ASHOKANAGARA, TUMAKUR - 577 101. REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1958.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29082 WP No. 34529 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION THE CONCERNED TRIBUNAL IN THE COURT ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-XI AT TUMKURU THE PETITIONER ARE PREMITTED TO WITHDRAW THE FD AWARD AMOUNT IN MVC NO.37/2019 JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2021 AND FURTHER PERMITTED THE PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW THE ENHANCED AMOUNT IN MFA NO.6428/2020 JUDGMENT DATED 22.09.2022 VIDE ANNX-A AND B.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶37

"i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the concerned Tribunal-the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XI at Tumaku and permit the petitioners to withdraw the FD award amount in MVC.No.37/2019 judgment dated 27/10/2021 and further permit them to withdraw the enhanced amount in MFA.No.6428/2022 judgment dated 22.09.2022 vide Annexure-A and B; and

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:29082 WP No. 34529 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ii. Pass such other order/s, relief/s, direction/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice and equity."

¶42

2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the mother and father respectively of the deceased Jaffar Sadiq, who expired in a road traffic accident on 04.11.2018. Pursuant thereto, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and petitioner Nos.3 to 7-the sisters and brothers of deceased Jaffar Sadiq had filed a proceedings in MVC No.37 of 2019, which came to be allowed on 27.10.2021 and an amount of Rs.12,06,800/- was awarded. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed MFA No.6428 of 2022 seeking for enhancement whereas respondent No.2 Insurance Company challenged the same by filing MFA No.1175 of 2022. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company came to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants came to be allowed by enhancing compensation from Rs.12,06,800/- to Rs.22,31,000/.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29082 WP No. 34529 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

While enhancing the compensation, the

¶46

apportionment was maintained at the same as that granted by the MACT. The petitioners are before this Court by contending that the amounts awarded may

¶47

be directed to be released instead of being kept in a fixed deposit.

¶48

3. A perusal of the documents it is seen that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 would be entitled to 25% each and petitioner No.3 to 7 are entitled to 10% each. Out of the compensation awarded to petitioner Nos.1 and 2, 50% was directed to be kept in fixed deposit and the amounts awarded to petitioner Nos.5 to 7 was to be released in their favour on attaining the majority.

¶49

4. Considering that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for release of the amount kept in fixed deposit to carry out the repairs of their house, photographs of the status of the house have been produced at Annexure-C series, I am of the

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29082 WP No. 34529 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

considered opinion that the request made by the petitioners would be required to be allowed partially.

¶53

In as much as petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 being the sisters I am of the considered opinion, the release of

¶54

any monies for the purpose of carrying out the repairs would adversely affect them in future. Similar would be the case with petitioner Nos.6 and 7 who are minors as of now, hence the amount awarded to them cannot be used for repairing the said house.

¶55

5. Insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, who are the mother and father of the deceased respectively, as also the mother and father of petitioner Nos.3 to 7, it being their duty to maintain the house in proper repair. I am of the considered opinion that the amount awarded to them can be released in their favour to carry out the said repairs. Hence, I pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part .

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:29082 WP No. 34529 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

(ii) The Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XI, Tumakuru, is directed to permit the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the father and mother to withdraw the entire enhanced compensation awarded in MFA No.6428 of 2022 on compliance with the due formalities.

¶62

It is made clear that the amounts awarded to petitioner Nos.3 to 7 shall continue to be kept in fixed deposit until they attain majority.

¶63

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶64

MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt. Mehar Taj v. Babu N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mehar Taj v. Babu N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Object Technologies Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R S Charan Kumar Vs the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Sri. B.N.Gangadhara, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Ramaswamy Ramanujam Vs Evenforce Technologies Private Limited

T. Madhusudan Vs the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Green Farm Tech Private Limited Vs Dr Kankere Thimmappa Gowda Mahesh