Allowed

Mrs. Sujatha Sukumaran v. M.P. Biju

Kerala HC18 Jun 2015OP (MAC)/43/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the writ petition and directed the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to release the petitioner's share of the award amount kept in a bank deposit. This decision enables the petitioner to complete house renovation, subject to submitting an application stating the completion timeline and producing a completion certificate.

What did the court decide?

Director to release petitioner's share within one month; petitioner to submit timeline for renovation and completion certificate.

Mrs. Sujatha Sukumaran Vs M.P. Biju — 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

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/28TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 43 of 2015 (O)

¶6

---------------------------(OP(MV).NO. 1261/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA)

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

MRS. SUJATHA SUKUMARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, ELANJITHARA HOUSE, THIRUMALBHAGAM P.O., THURAVOOR VILLAGE, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL S.RAJ

¶10

SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. M.P. BIJU, MURINGAKKALAYIL HOUSE, MANDIRAM P.O., RANNI - 689 672.

¶13

2. SASIKUMAR,S/O. KESAVAN ACHARI, ALUNKAL HOUSE, MANDIRAM P.O., RANNI-689 672

¶14

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, IST FLOOR, NEDVELIL BUILDING, PAZHAVANGADI P.O., RANNI - 689 612.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶16

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶17

ON 18-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

OP (MAC).No. 43 of 2015 (O)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT-P1TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN O.P (M.V).NO.1261/2007 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPUZHA DATED 24/01/2012.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NUMBERED AS I.A 1990/2014 IN O.P (MV).NO. 1261/2007 DATED 28/06/2014.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE BILL, RECEIPT AND 3 OTHER DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT-P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A 1990/2014 IN O.P(MV) 1261/2007 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA DATED 27/08/2014.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶30

O.P.(MAC) No.43 of 2015

¶31

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2015.

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha rejecting Ext.P2 application for the release of the petitioner's share in the award amount which is now kept in deposit in a nationalised bank, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶34

The petitioner herein is the 1^st claimant in O.P.(M.V) No.1261 of 2007 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The petitioner alleges that she preferred the same when she lost her husband in a motor accident. Her minor son and mother in law were the other claimants. The tribunal by Ext.P1 award was pleased to award a sum of Rs.4,16,948/- with interest thereon to the three claimants. The petitioner is living in a dilapidated house and though she started the renovation of the building, she could not complete the work for want of funds. It is further alleged that she

¶35

O.P.(MAC) No.43 of 2015

¶36

-2-

¶37

preferred Ext.P2 application seeking permission to withdraw the money lying in her fixed deposit. When the same came up for consideration, the Tribunal directed her to produce ownership certificate as well as the completion certificate from the Engineer dealing with the work. Since such a certificate will be issued only on completion of a building, and since she neither had the means to complete the same without availing a portion of the fixed deposit, nor had engaged an engineer to do the work, she accordingly instructed her counsel. However, the Tribunal was not willing to accept the said submission.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶39

and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent in the matter.

¶40

The petitioner alleges that her house is in a dilapidated condition and it has become necessary to keep the same renovated. The petitioner further points out that she had started the renovation work and the work was entrusted to one contractor. However she could not complete the work for want of funds.

¶41

O.P.(MAC) No.43 of 2015

¶42

-3-

¶43

The learned MACT cannot be found fault with for restricting the release as the learned Tribunal is bound by the directions of the apex court in KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas

¶44

[1994 (2) SCC 176] . However, as it appears from the records that the petitioner's grievance is genuine, this Court is of the view that a direction can be issued to the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to release the balance now kept in deposit to the petitioner.

¶45

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petitioner's share in the award amount which is now kept in deposit in the nationalised bank, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall submit the application for release on the strength of the judgment stating that time within which she would be able to complete the renovation. The learned MACT shall fix a time for production of the completion certificate to ensure the utilisation of the money.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Scl.

Mrs. Sujatha Sukumaran v. M.P. Biju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sujatha Sukumaran v. M.P. Biju

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

K.v.Varkey Vs Muvattupuzha Muncipality

Chairman,Islahiya Charitable Trust Vs State of Kerala

Glashan Ann George Vs State of Kerala

St.Mary'S Nursery and L.P.School Vs State of Kerala

Noorjahan Vs Thodiyoor Grama Panchayath

Human Welfare Centre Vs the Kalamassery Municipality