Allowed

Valsa Babu v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Kerala HC17 Jul 2012OP (MAC)/2289/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the High Court was satisfied that the impugned order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not consider the petitioners’ case properly. The Tribunal failed to address the agreement for sale and the interests of the minor children without providing an opportunity to adduce further evidence. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed to set aside the order and to direct the Tribunal

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order set aside. The Impugned Order is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to reconsider I.A.No.4157/12 afresh after giving further opportunity to petitioners.

Valsa Babu Vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2012/26TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

OP (MACT).No. 2289 of 2012 (O)

¶6

[O.P(M.V).NO.1052/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM]

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. VALSA BABU,AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.LATE THOMAS GEORGE, THADATHIVILA VEEDU, NALLILA CHERRY, NALLILA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 515.

¶9

2. CHRISTY THOMAS, AGED 16 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS GEORGE (REP.BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND VALSA BABU 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN) DO - DO -

¶10

3. SARA THOMAS, AGED 14 YEARS, D/O.LATE THOMAS GEORGE (REP.BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND VALSA BABU 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN) DO - DO -

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM), SRI.H.RAMANAN, SRI.JAMES JOSE.

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 013.

¶14

¶15

THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P.(MACT).NO.2289/2012-O:

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P.1: AGREEMENT FOR SALE (TRUE COPY). EXT.P.2: I.A.4157/12 IN O.P(MV)1052/2006 OF MACT, KOLLAM. (TRUE COPY). EXT.P.3: ORDER OF MACT, KOLLAM, REJECTING EXT.P.2. APPLICATION (TRUE COPY).

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN,J.

¶25

--------------------------------------------O.P.(MAC).No.2289 of 2012

¶26

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2012

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The petitioners are the claimants in OP (MV) 1052 of 2006. As per an award passed in the said petition, an amount of `7,76,500/- has been granted as compensation to the petitioners. 75% of the said amount has been directed to be kept as Fixed Deposit for a period of three years in a nationalised Bank. Petitioners 2 and 3 are minors.

¶29

The petitioners had filed I.A.No.4157 of 2012 seeking release of the amounts lying in deposit to their credit. According to the petitioners, they want to purchase a house of their own. The total cost of the house is `13,50,000/-. They have paid an advance amount of

¶30

O.P.(MAC)No.2289 /2012

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

`3,50,000/- and an agreement for sale has been executed. To complete the sale transaction, they need the amounts lying to their credit in the above case also. However, the Tribunal has dismissed their petition finding that the need put forward by them is not genuine.

¶33

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is not based on any evidence or materials on record. The need of purchasing a house according to the counsel, is a genuine one that cannot be found fault with by anyone. Therefore, he seeks appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P3.

¶34

I have heard the contentions of the counsel, I am satisfied that Ext.P3 has not considered the case of the petitioners in the proper perspective. The order does not disclose on what basis the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the need of the petitioners is not genuine. According to the petitioners, the agreement for sale entered into between the 1^st petitioner and the owner of

¶35

O.P.(MAC)No.2289 /2012

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

the house that they want to purchase was produced. However, the order does not mention anything about the said agreement. Petitioners 2 and 3 being minors, their interests are to acquire paramount consideration at the hands of the court. Therefore, the question as to what is the best course in the interests of the minors should have engaged the attention of the Tribunal. If the petitioners have not produced sufficient material or evidence to substantiate their claim, a further opportunity should have been given to them to produce additional documents or materials for the said purpose. On the basis of such material, it is necessary that the issue is reconsidered by the Tribunal. The order Ext.P3 does not consider any of the above relevant facts or even the agreement alleged to have been produced in support of the case of the petitioners.

¶38

Therefore, Ext.P3 is set aside. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam is directed to consider I.A.No.4157 of 2012 afresh, if necessary after giving a

¶39

O.P.(MAC)No.2289 /2012

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

further opportunity to the petitioners to produce additional documents and to adduce oral evidence. The matter shall be considered in the light of the parameters indicated above and appropriate orders shall be passed on the above I.A. as expeditiously as possible.

¶42

Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶43

kkj

¶44

//True copy//

¶45

PA to Judge.

Valsa Babu v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsa Babu v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

President, Karikkamancode Service Co-Op. Vs Jt. Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Gopal P. Prasad Vs the Controlling Authority

Venugopalan.P. Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

Rosamma Vs Jt.R.T.O,Pala

Ezhvathuruthy Kayar Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangam Vs the State of Kerala

P.a.Jose Vs Secy.R.T.a,Thrissur