Allowed

Manoj Illikkal v. Suhara

Kerala HC22 Nov 2012OP (MAC)/3958/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the original petition. The court set aside the order holding the amount in fixed deposit and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the compensation deposited for three and five years by the insurance company due to his financial difficulties.

What did the court decide?

The original petition is allowed, the Ext.P5 order is set aside, and the I.A. No.1999/2012 is allowed permitting the petitioner to withdraw the amount in deposit.

Manoj Illikkal Vs Suhara — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/1ST AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 3958 of 2012 (O)

¶6

OPMV.443/2008 of PRIONCIPAL M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MANOJ ILLIKKAL, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PERUMANNA KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

SUHARA

¶12

6/849, PADINHAREKANDI HOUSE, P.O.MAVOOR KOZHIKODE.

¶13

MUHAMMED RAFI.K.T.

¶14

S/O.IBRAHIM, VADAKKETHODIKAYIL HOUSE, P.O.PAZHOOR KOZHIKODE.

¶15

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., D.O., SEEMA BUILDING, CITY PLAZA BUILDING

¶16

G.H.ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶17

BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3

¶18

THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP (MAC).No. 3958 of 2012 (O)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1: AWARD DTD. 21.6.2011 IN O.P.(MV).NO.443/2008 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T, KOZHIKODE.

¶23

EXT.P2: AFFIDAVIT DTD. 11.5.2012 FILED IN SUPPORT OF I.A.NO.1999/2012 IN O.P.(MV) 443/2008. EXT.P3: LETTER DTD. 9.5.2012 ISSUED FROM THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., PANTHERANKAVU BRANCH. EXT.P4: CERTIFICATE DTD. 26.6.2012 ISSUED FROM THE GOKULAM FINANCE. EXT.P5: ORDER DTD. 12.6.2012 IN I.A.NO.1999/2011 IN O.P.(MV). NO.443/2008.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶25

// TRUE COPY //

¶26

P.A TO JUDGE.

¶27

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶28

O.P.(MAC).No.3958 Of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2012.

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The original petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P5 order and for a direction directing the II Additional M.A.C.T, Kozhikode to release the amount of Rs.1,35,656/- which was deposited for 3 years and Rs.1,35,657/- deposited for 5 years as per the directions contained in award in O.P(MV).No.443/2008.

¶32

The II Additional M.A.C.T., Kozhikode, by award dated 12.6.2012 allowed O.P(MV).No.443/2008. The petitioner was allowed to recover a sum of Rs.3,43,410/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 3^rd respondent insurance company was directed to deposit the amount. The Tribunal further directed the insurance company to produce one cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner and other two cheques for equal amount for the balance compensation amount which was directed to be deposited for a period of three years and five years respectively. The 3^rd respondent insurance company deposited the amount as directed by the Tribunal. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1999/2012

¶33

::2::

¶34

O.P.(MAC).No.3958 Of 2012

¶35

to release the amount in fixed deposit. Ext.P2 is the copy of the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. It is stated that the petitioner is in financial difficulties and he was unable to repay his debts. The petitioner has produced Ext.P3 letter issued by the Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank and Ext.P4 certificate issued by Gokulam Finance. Exts.P3 & P4 show that the petitioner owes liability of Rs.2,01,228/- and Rs.1,04,750/- respectively. It also show that the petitioner has to repay the amount mentioned therein to the financial institutions. The petitioner submits that the loan was taken for the purpose of treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident. It is also submitted that he has sustained 30% disability as a result of which he was unable to do any work and therefore, he was not in a position to repay the debt.

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner shall be permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit.

¶37

::3::

¶38

O.P.(MAC).No.3958 Of 2012

¶39

Accordingly, the O.P is allowed. Ext.P5 order is set aside. I.A.No.1999/2012 is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit as per Ext.P1 award passed in O.P(MV).No.443/2008 on the file of the II Additional M.A.C.T, Kozhikode.

¶40

bkn/-

Manoj Illikkal v. Suhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Illikkal v. Suhara

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

Manakadavan Aboobacker Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sivaprasadan Pillai Vs Abdul Basith

Sasankan Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Thankappan Vs the Divisional Manager

S.Manoj Vs the District Collector

Abdul Hakkim Vs the Secretary Regional Transport Authority