Dismissed

Bargavi v. Saji

Kerala HC7 Aug 2012OP (MAC)/2577/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The petitioner claimed she is a widow eligible for compensation, while respondents 1 and 2 (alleged children) were awarded it. The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to produce evidence to support her allegation that the wife deserted the deceased. Consequently, the request to restra

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking directions to restrain the Tribunal from disbursing the award to the respondents 1 and 2 was dismissed.

Bargavi Vs Saji — Motor Accident Claims | 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 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/16TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

OP (MACT).No. 2577 of 2012 (O)

¶6

-----------------------------OPMV.1931/2007 of M.A.C.T.,KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:-:

¶8

BHARGAVI,, AGED 55 YEARS W/O.SASI, CHARUVILAVEEDU, THINKALKARIKKOM KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/3RD RESPONDENTS:-:

¶11

SAJI,

¶12

SUMANGALI BHAVAN, ABDOOKKONAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 006.

¶13

SOBHA,

¶14

THADATHARIKATH VEEDU, KANVYAKULANGARA, VEMBAYAM

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 006.

¶16

THE DIVITIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE PATHANAMTHITTA - 687 511

¶17

BY SC SHRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA

¶18

THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF RATION CARD 1996 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF RATION CARD 2002 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ELECTORAL ROLL OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE OP(MV)805/09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE OP(MV) 1931/07 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1ST AND 2ND.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN OP(MV)1931/07 DATED 05.05.2012.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.4424/12 IN OP(MV)1931/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶33

OP(MAC) NO: 2577 OF 2012

¶34

Dated this the 7^th August, 2012.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner had filed OP(MV) 805/2009 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam ('MACT' for short). Respondents 1 and 2 had filed OP(MV) 1931/2007 before the same Tribunal. The third respondent is the insurer. In both the claim petitions, the parties claimed compensation for the death of late Purushothaman who died in a motor accident on 3-1-2007. The petitioner is a sister of late Purushothaman who according to her is a widow. She also has a son. Respondents 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of late Purushothaman. According to the petitioner, the wife of late Purushothaman had deserted him 27 years back and therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are not the children of late Purushothaman. For the above reason, it is contended that they are not entitled to claim the compensation awarded by the MACT, Kollam as per Ext.P6.

¶37

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner had also filed a separate claim petition, her claim petition

¶38

OP(MAC) 2577/2012 2

¶39

has been dismissed and the claim petition submitted by respondents 1 and 2 have been allowed.

¶40

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the wife of the deceased had deserted him 27 years back and therefore, it is contended that respondents 1 and 2 are not the children of late Purushothaman. However, no evidence to support the above contention is produced before me. No evidence to support the said contention was also produced before the MACT, Kollam. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and granted an award in favour of respondents 1 and 2. The counsel for the petitioner also seeks the issue of appropriate directions restraining the Tribunal from disbursing the award amount to respondents 1 and 2. In view of the fact that there is no evidence to support the case of the petitioner, I do not find any justification to grant the interim order that has been sought for. I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any reliefs in this writ petition.

¶41

For the above reasons this writ petition is dismissed.

¶42

jj /True copy/

¶43

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN P.S.to Judge

¶44

OP(MAC) 2577/2012 3

Bargavi v. Saji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bargavi v. Saji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cyriac Zacharias Vs Registrar, Office of the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Mohammed Shafi Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode

Quilon Medical Trust Vs State of Kerala

R.Sathyadevan Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal,Tvm

The Kerala Institute of Local Administration Kila) Vs Gliston Vincent

Kattoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the State Information Commission of Kerala