Dismissed

K.M.Mathew v. the President

Kerala HC17 Jun 2014WP(C)/10549/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding a retired employee's apprehension of recovery for excess gratuity received via a group insurance policy. The court affirmed that the petitioner has no liability to return any portion of the amount paid to him under the insurance terms.

What did the court decide?

Declared that the petitioner has no liability to return any portion of the amount received as per the Group Insurance Policy terms.

K.M.Mathew Vs the President — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/27TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 10549 of 2014 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :-

¶7

K.M.MATHEW, EDAMANA HOUSE, KIDANGOOR SOUTH P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :-

¶10

1. THE PRESIDENT, THE KIDANGOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3431 KIDANGOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 572.

¶11

2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM, P& GS UNIT, LIC OF INDIA JEEVAN JYOTHI, II FLOOR, STAR JUNCTION KOTTAYAM - 686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA

¶13

SRI.S.EASWARAN (B/o)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

jvt

¶16

WP(C).No. 10549 of 2014 (P)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :-

¶19

EXT.P1: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE NAMES OF EMPLOYEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK DATED 01/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P2: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 14/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF GRATUITY IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶21

EXT.P3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RESOLUTION NO.596 DATED 29/03/2014 OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL

¶23

//TRUE COPY//

¶24

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶25

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶26

W.P.(C). No.10549 of 2014

¶27

--------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of June 2014

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner is a retired employee of the Kidangoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited, of which the first respondent is the President. The liability of the bank for payment of gratuity to the petitioner was covered by a Group Insurance Policy issued by the second respondent. In terms of the policy, the entire amount of gratuity due to the petitioner was paid to the first respondent by the second respondent. As per Exhibits P1 and P2, the entire amount so received from the second respondent was paid to the petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, an objection has been raised that the petitioner had been paid amounts in excess of what is actually due to him under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The petitioner apprehend that action would be initiated against him for recovery of the excess amount.

¶30

The counsel for the second respondent Dr.Abraham P.Meachinkara submits that the entire amount due as per the

¶31

W.P.(C). No.10549 of 2014

¶32

-: 2 :-

¶33

terms of the insurance policy was paid to the first respondent and that the said amount has been paid to the petitioner also. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court reported in Retnavalli v. Ambalapadu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2005(3) KLT 320] as well as the decision reported in Mathew Kora v. Kadathuruthy Urban Cooperative Bank and others [ILR 2013 (4) Kerala 933] to contend that, the entire amount due under the Insurance Policy for coverage of the liability of gratuity is to be paid to the petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the above legal position.

¶34

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioner has no liability to return any portion of the amount that he has received as per the terms of the Group Insurance Policy that the first respondent had taken with the second respondent for coverage of the liability for payment of gratuity to the petitioner.

¶35

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.

¶36

Jvt

K.M.Mathew v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Mathew v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jijo Thomas Vs Anoop Varghese

Raju Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar.v Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Kollam

Unnikrishnan U P Vs P M Muhammed

Jihtin Antony Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operati Ve Societies (General)

Shoba P.B. Vs Thiruvarppu Village Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd.