Quashed

Lehtakumari @ Letha v. the Managing Director

Kerala HC5 Aug 2015OP (MAC)/100/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition challenged an order by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for failure to produce a legal heir certificate of her deceased mother-in-law. The court noted the existence of a legal heir certificate showing the mother-in-law had relinquished her claim in the petitioner's favor, held that the Tribunal erred, and set

What did the court decide?

Impugned order Ext.P5 set aside. Ist Additional MACT, Kollam directed to reconsider petitioner's claim considering Ext.P2 certificate.

Lehtakumari @ Letha Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/14TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 100 of 2015 (O)

¶6

O.P(MV)NO.1354/2004 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

LEHTAKUMARI @ LETHA, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.LATE DEVARAJAN, 'SUDHA BAVANAM', EDAVATTOM MURI, PAVITHERESWARAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, S.C

¶13

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

OP (MAC).No. 100 of 2015 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

P1: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD DATED 16.06.2007 IN O.P.(M.V).NO.1354/2004 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 1ST ADDL.MACT, KOLLAM.

¶19

P2: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR DATED 22.02.2005.

¶20

P3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 06.11.2012 ISSUED FROM THE PAVITHRESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶21

P4: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITION AS I.A.NO.67/2014.

¶22

P5: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2015 IN I.A.NO.67/2014 IN O.P(MV)NO.1354/2004 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 1ST ADDL.MACT, KOLLAM.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶29

O.P.(MAC) No. 100 of 2015

¶30

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2015.

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Under challenge in this original petition is Ext.P5order

¶33

passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam by which the petitioner was asked to produce the legal heir certificate of the fourth claimant, who according to the petitioner, already relingushed the claim in favour of the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased.

¶34

The petitioner is the first claimant in O.P.(M.V.)No 1354/2004 on the file of the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The petitioner, along with her two children and her mother-in-law (mother of the deceased husband), filed above said O.P for compensation for the death of the petitioner's husband on account of the injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.4.1999. The petitioner's mother-in-law died during the pendency of the petition. The petitioner alleges that in the legal heirship

¶35

O.P.(MAC) No. 100 of 2015

¶36

-2-

¶37

certificate, as stated by late Sarojini, the Tahasildar allowed the petitioner to receive the amount deposited by the respondent in her name as her mother-in-law had relinguished her right in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition for releasing the amount. However, the tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce LHC of deceased Sarojini. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶39

and the learned standing counsel for the respondent in the matter.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Tahasildar which reveals that the fourth claimant Smt. Sarojini who is the mother of the deceased had relinguished her right in the name of the petitioner. It appears that the same has escaped the attention of the learned Ist Additional MACT, Kollam. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order

¶41

O.P.(MAC) No. 100 of 2015

¶42

-3-

¶43

shall not be allowed.

¶44

In the result, Ext.P5 is set aside. The Ist Additional MACT, Kollam is directed to re-consider the petitioner's claim in the light of Ext.P2 certificate. Formal orders to this effect, shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

For a speedy action, the Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition to the Ist Additional MACT, Kollam.

¶46

Sd/A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Scl.

Lehtakumari @ Letha v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lehtakumari @ Letha v. the Managing Director

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.Bharghavan Vs Dr.S.Bindu

Abdul Rasak Vs Nagalassery Grama Panchayth

Anjali K.V Vs State of Kerala

Jim Jose Vs Corporation of Kochi

T.P.Dasan Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala