Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Vahab

Kerala HC13 Aug 2012OP (MAC)/2406/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition was filed by an insurance company challenging an order granting interest on a delayed deposit of a Lok Adalath settlement share. The Court held the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Rule 395 of Kerala MV Rules and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company was directed to pay the awarded interest of ₹21,900 as ordered by the Tribunal.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Abdul Vahab — Insurance | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/22ND SRAVANA 1934 OP (MACT).No. 2406 of 2012 () ----------------------------OPMV.75/2007 of M.A.C.T.,ATTINGAL

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BRANCH OFFICE PLOT NO 1345/C2 NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, MAIN ROAD, ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESETNED BY ITS MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

ABDUL VAHAB, S/O MOHAMMED HANEEFA, RAFEEK MANZIL, JAMMU MUKKU ANAKKAPPILLAI JUNCTION, CHITTATTUMUKKU, P.O KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695301

¶10

RAFEEK.V,

¶11

S/O ABDUL VAHAB, RAFEEK MANZIL, JAMMU MUKKU

¶12

ANAKKAPPILLAI JUNCTION, CHITTATTUMUKKU, P.O

¶13

KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695301

¶14

SHAFEEK,

¶15

RAFEEK MANZIL, JAMMU MUKKU, ANAKKAPPILLAI JUNCTION

¶16

CHITTATTUMUKKU, P.O, KANIYAPURAM

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695301

¶18

ANIL KUMAR,

¶19

S/O SARASWATHI AMMA, KIZHANGUVILA VEEDU

¶20

KADINAMKULAM, PUTHUKURICHY P.O

¶21

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, 695301

¶22

SHEREEF,

¶23

S/O ABDUL RAHUMAN, MANAKKATTUVILAKAM, ANAKKAPILLAI

¶24

CHITTATTUMUKKU, P.O, KANIYAPURAM

¶25

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695301

¶26

THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AWARD DATED 12.12.09. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.6.12. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 8.6.12.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL

¶30

JJ /TRUE COPY/

¶31

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶32

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶33

O.P(MAC) NO: 2406 OF 2012

¶34

Dated this the 13^th August, 2012.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is Messrs. New India Assurance Company Limited, the third respondent in OP(MV)75/2007 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal. The original petition was filed by the legal representatives of late Safiya Beevi who died in a road accident on 26-5-2006. Respondents 4 and 5 herein are the owner and driver of the vehicle that was involved in the accident. The vehicle was insured with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was also impleaded as an additional respondent in the O.P before the Tribunal.

¶37

During the pendency of the claim petition, the same was referred to the Lok Adalath, was numbered as RC 120/2009 and on 12-12-2009, the matter was settled. As per the settlement, the petitioner, Insurance Company agreed to pay a total amount of `3,65,000/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty five thousand only) as compensation in full and final settlement of the claim of respondents 1 to 3. A copy of the said settlement is Ext.P1.

¶38

¶39

OP(MAC) 2406/2012

¶40

According to the petitioner, the claimants were directed to produce a legal heirship certificate from the competent authority within a period of six months and to submit an application for apportioning the compensation among themselves. Pursuant to the award, the petitioner obtained necessary concurrence from the competent authorities and deposited the award amount of 3,65,000/- on 9-9-2010. On the date of deposit of the amount, respondents 1 to 3 had not produced any certificate in proof of their claim that they were legal heirs of the deceased, before the Tribunal. No application had also been filed for apportioning the compensation amount or for getting the same released. Later on, I.A.510/2012, 511/2012, 2020/2012 and 2255/2012 were filed by the claimants seeking release of the deposited amount before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while ordering the said petitions, took note of the fact that there was delay in deposit of the award amount and therefore directed the petitioner company to pay interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 12% per annum for a period of six months. The total amount of interest works out to 21,900/(Rupees twenty one thousand nine hundred only). The petitioner has filed this original petition aggrieved by the said order, Ext.P2. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the award

¶41

OP(MAC) 2406/2012 3

¶42

Ext.P1 was passed under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The said award is therefore final and cannot be modified by the Tribunal, as sought to be done by Ext.P2. Since the award has been passed by the Lok Adalath, the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction in the matter. Therefore, it is contended that Ext.P2 is absolutely without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. It is pointed out that the effect of Ext.P2 is to modify the award by granting something more than what has been granted by the Lok Adalath. The counsel also places reliance on the decision in

¶43

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ponnamma Thomas {2007(4) KLT

¶44

519} . For the above reasons, the petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Ext.P2.

¶45

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. I have also considered the contentions anxiously.

¶46

In the present case, Ext.P1 decree has been passed by the Lok Adalath directing that an amount of `3,65,000/- shall be paid in full and final settlement of the claim in OP(MV)75/2007. There is a further direction that the petitioner will issue cheque in the name of respondents 1 to 3. Thereafter, the decree further states that “in view of the directions of the High Court, applicants are allowed to withdraw the award amount only on apportionment and release

¶47

¶48

OP(MAC) 2406/2012

¶49

order. Till then the amount will be deposited in fixed deposit in MACT's name in Indian Bank, Attingal. Produce legal heirship certificate within six months and apply for apportionment and release.”

¶50

A reading of the above terms show that there was a positive direction issued to the Insurance Company to issue cheque in the name of the petitioner. The amount was directed to be deposited in a fixed deposit in the name of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal at the Indian Bank, Attingal. It is obvious that the above direction was with the intention of ensuring that the amount earned some interest. The legal heirs were granted six months time to obtain a legal heirship certificate. The above direction does not permit the Insurance Company to delay payment of the amount awarded. In this case it is not disputed that the petitioner - Insurance Company had delayed deposit of the amount by a period of nine months. Consequently, respondents 1 to 3 have been deprived of the amount of interest that the compensation amount would have earned had it been deposited in accordance with the direction contained contained in Ext.P1. Therefore, it has to be held that the omission on the part of the Insurance Company in not depositing the amount immediately after the date of Ext.P1

¶51

OP(MAC) 2406/2012

¶52

¶53

has resulted in monetary loss to respondents 1 to 3. It is the above loss that has been made good by the Tribunal by passing Ext.P2 order. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ponnamma Thomas (supra) . In the said case, a decree passed by the Adalath was sought to be modified contending that there was calculation mistake in the amount that was decreed. A Division Bench of this Court has held that since the matter has been settled at the Adalath, no further alterations could be made. The dictum in the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case for the reason that there is no such error in the present case that required correction.

¶54

The question that arises here is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has the power to grant interest for the delay in depositing the decreed amount in exercise of its powers as the Execution Court. The above question has been considered by another Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Ramankutty Menon v. M.A.C.T., Ernakulam {2000(1) K.L.J 812} . The question that the Division Bench had to consider in the said case was whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant interest on an award that had become final

¶55

OP(MAC) 2406/2012

¶56

¶57

after an appeal filed against the same had been disposed of. The Division Bench referred to Rule 395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and held that the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure was applicable to the execution of decrees by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. After referring to the decisions on the point, the Division Bench has held in paragraph 7 of the said judgment as follows:-

¶58

“Thus it is the duty of the judgment debtor to give notice of such deposit to the decree holder and till notice of such deposit is given or till the decree holder becomes aware of the deposit of the amount, he is entitled to interest on the award amount.”

¶59

In view of the above binding dictum of the Division Bench, I have no doubt in my mind that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal possessed sufficient powers to grant interest as done by Ext.P2. I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P2. For the above reasons this original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶60

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶61

jj /True copy/

¶62

P.S.to Judge

¶63

OP(MAC) 2406/2012 7

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Vahab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Vahab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandran Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Usha Raveendran Vs the Chief Engineer (Hrm)

Hareendranath A.G. Vs the Special Sale Officer

K.P.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

E. Hamza Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

P Balasubramaniyam Vs Secretary to Government