Allowed

M.Lokanathan v. the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Kerala HC26 Jul 2012OP (MAC)/2315/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's original petition and directed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to re-examine the claim for releasing the balance amount held in fixed deposit, noting that the petitioner had produced new evidence of liabilities not available to the Tribunal earlier.

What did the court decide?

Directed to consider the claim for release of the balance amount in fixed deposit upon filing a fresh petition with the supporting documents.

M.Lokanathan Vs the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2012/4TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

OP (MACT).No. 2315 of 2012 (O)

¶6

-----------------------------OPMV.1123/2010 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

M.LOKANATHAN, AGED 49 YEARS PARAKKAL VEEDU, THATHOOR POYIL, P.O.MAVOOR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KOZHIKODE.

¶12

THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶15

EXT.P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE I.A NO.1746 OF 2012 IN O.P.(M.V) NO.1123 OF 2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRL.,M.A.C.T. KOZHIKODE.

¶16

EXT.P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.5.2012 PASSED IN I.A. NO.1746 OF 2012 IN O.P. (M.V) NO.1123 OF 2010 BY THE M.A.C.T ,KOZHIKODE.

¶17

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.26.4.2011 BEARING NUMBER la 806/7280 ISSUED BY UCO BANK, MAVOOR TO JAYANTHI, WIFE OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P4: -DO- BEARING NO:LA 806/7273 ISSUED BY UCO BANK, MAVOOR TO THE PETITIONER

¶18

EXT.P5: -DO- NOTICE DT.25.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE KOZHIKODE PRIMARY COOPERATIVE RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER

¶19

EXT.P6: -DO- DT.8.2.2012 ISSUED BY THE KOZHIKODE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER

¶20

EXT.P7: -DO- CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MANAGER OF THE UCO BANK, MAVOOR DT.7.7.2011

¶21

EXT.P8: -DO- CERTIFICATE DT.9.7.2011 ISSUED TO JAYANTHI WIFE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE SECRETARY, THE MAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUR COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶27

O.P(MAC) NO: 2315 OF 2012

¶28

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th July, 2012.

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner has filed this original petition challenging Ext.P2 order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in I.A.746/2012 in O.P(MV) 1123/2010. As per the said order the petitioner's interlocutory application has been allowed only in part.

¶31

The petitioner is the claimant in O.P(MV)1123/2010. He had filed the said petition claiming compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The Tribunal after trial awarded an amount of 2,03,406/- with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. Only an amount of 50,000/- was paid to the petitioner out of the said amount. The balance amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in the petitioner's name for a period of three years. Accordingly, the said amount is remaining in fixed deposit.

¶32

According to the petitioner, he is indebted to various financial institutions. The amounts were borrowed by him for his treatment. The petitioner is not in a position to repay the said amounts and therefore, the said institutions have threatened legal

¶33

OP(MAC) 2315/2012 2

¶34

action against him. It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner had filed I.A.1746/2012 for release of the amount remaining in fixed deposit, as stated above. As per the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed release of only an amount of `50,000/-. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order.

¶35

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal has not considered the contentions of the petitioner in the proper perspective. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Ext.P2. When this case came up on 19-7-2012 for admission, the petitioner was asked as to what documents he would be able to produce in support of his contentions. Accordingly, as per I.A.10148/2012 the petitioner has produced Exts.P3 to P8 documents in support of his contentions that he has a number of pending liabilities that are required to be discharged. Since the documents Exts.P3 to P8 were not produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had no opportunity to peruse them. It is also to be borne in mind that the documents would have to be proved by the petitioner before they could be relied on. In view of the existence of the documents Exts.P3 to P8, it is necessary that the claim of the petitioner in I.A.1746/2012 is considered afresh. Since the Tribunal has permitted the release of

¶36

OP(MAC) 2315/2012 3

¶37

an amount of `50,000/- to the petitioner by the impugned order, it is not necessary to set aside the order to the said extent. However, with regard to the claim of the petitioner for release of the balance amount, it is necessary that the Tribunal considers the matter afresh.

¶38

This original petition is accordingly allowed. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode is directed to consider the question of release of the balance amount that is remaining in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner upon the petitioner filing a fresh petition producing the documents Exts.P3 to P8 and any other documents that he may choose to produce.

¶39

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶40

jj /True copy/

¶41

P.S.to Judge

¶42

OP(MAC) 2315/2012 4

M.Lokanathan v. the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Lokanathan v. the 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

K.Sabu Vs the State of Kerala

M.T.Abdulla Vs the Secretary

M.T.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Poulose Vs Mahalekshmi Menon

George Thomas @ Bijukuttan Vs the Divisional Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

K.v.Krishnan Vs U.Manikandan and Others