Allowed

Sudha v. United India Insurance Co.

Kerala HC17 Jan 2013OP (MAC)/218/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order refusing permission to encash a fixed deposit holding compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. The High Court set aside the order, allowing the petitioners to withdraw the balance for marriage-related expenses.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order set aside; I.A.No.3642/2012 allowed; balance amount in deposit allowed to be encashed by the first petitioner.

Sudha Vs United India Insurance Co. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/27TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

OP (MACT).No. 218 of 2013 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV.199/2006

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

SUDHA, AGED 44 YEARS

¶9

W/O.LATE BABU, MEDAKKUNNU, MALAYIL HOUSE

¶10

P.O KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE

¶11

SUBIN BABU

¶12

S/O.LATE BABU, MEDAKKUNNU MALAYIL HOUSE

¶13

P.O KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE

¶14

SUBINA

¶15

D/O. LATE BANU, MEDAKKUNNU MALAYIL HOUSE

¶16

P.O KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

¶18

RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.

¶20

DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001

¶21

R BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶22

THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

APPENDIX IN O.P (MAC) No.218 of 2013

¶24

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO 199/2006 II ADDL.MACT KOZHIKODE
EXT.P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION OF THE MARRIAGE DATED 29-04-2012
EXT.P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DAMS GOLD KAKKODI
EXT.P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26-07-2012 IN IA NO . 3642/2012 OP(MV) NO 199/2006
EXT.P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9-10-2012 PASSED IN EXT.P2 APPLICATION

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶28

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶29

O.P (MAC) No. 218 OF 2013 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2013

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the standing

¶32

counsel for the respondent.

¶33

Ext.P5 order refusing permission to withdraw the balance amount in deposit towards compensation in a motor accidents claim is under challenge in this writ petition. The husband of the first petitioner and the father of petitioners 2 and 3 suffered injuries in a motor accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by Ext.P1 Award granted a sum of 5,17,420/as against the claim of 8 lakhs towards compensation.

¶34

The injured thereafter died who had in the mean

¶35

while drawn a portion of the amount awarded in deposit to clear off other liabilities. The petitioners who are the legal heirs of the injured claimant sought disbursement of the balance sum of ` 2,12,073/- lying in fixed deposit. The specific reason stated for withdrawing the amount is the expenses for the marriage of the third petitioner towards purchase of gold ornaments.

¶36

O.P. (MAC) No.218/2013

¶37

¶38

The invitation card for the marriage was produced as well as a letter of the jewellery shop indicating that a sum of `2,93,342/- is due towards purchase of jewellery. Petitioners 2 and 3 had also filed affidavits before the Tribunal expressing their willingness in the first petitioner encashing the fixed deposit receipt. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the claim put forward by the petitioners since the amount in deposit is sought to be applied for justifiable reasons.

¶39

I set aside Ext.P5 order and allow I.A.No.3642 of 2012 in OP (MV) No.199/2006 on the file of the court of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The balance amount in deposit in O.P. (MV) No.199/2006 shall be allowed to be encashed by the first petitioner as authorised by petitioners 2 and 3 for the purpose of meeting the contingency explained. The needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶41

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶42

nj.

Sudha v. United India Insurance Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha v. United India Insurance Co.

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

P.Prasanna Kumari Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

M.P.Sivan Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

P.Komalavally Vs Sri.Elangovan, IAS

Raju.M.Micheal Vs the Chief Engineer (Electricity Distribution)

Kaderkutty C @ Abdulkadher Vs United India Insurance Company

Smijith Vs Kerala State Electricity Board