Disposed

Sreedeviyamma v. the Branch Manager

Kerala HC25 Jul 2016OP (MAC)/78/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an Original Petition challenging orders by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal limiting the withdrawal amount. The Court permitted withdrawal of ₹50,000 but set aside the order requiring production of documents regarding pending recovery actions, directing the Tribunal to reconsider.

What did the court decide?

Remanded for consideration of I.A. nos. 967-969/2016 to consider release of balance deposit upon production of documents regarding pending recovery.

Sreedeviyamma Vs the Branch Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2016/3RD SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 78 of 2016 (O)

¶6

OP(MV) 1096/2013 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KOLLAM -----------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. SREEDEVIYAMMA AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.MURALIDHARAN PILLAI, PADMA VIHAR, MANAMPUZHA P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶9

2. ANANDA PADMAN AGED 22 YEARS, PADMA VIHAR, MANAMPUZHA P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶10

3. MURALIDHARAN AGED 56 YEARS, MANAMPUZHA P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶11

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

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, KOLLAM-691001.

¶14

BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE ,SC

¶15

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.V.

¶17

OP (MAC).No. 78 of 2016 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)	' EXHIBIT	S
-------------	---------	-
EXHIBIT-P1:	A TRUE BEFORE KOLLAM	PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A.NO.967/2016 FILED THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, .
EXHIBIT-P2:	A TRUE BEFORE KOLLAM	PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A.NO.968/2016 FILED THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, .
EXHIBIT-P3:	A TRUE BEFORE KOLLAM	PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A.NO.969/2016 FILED THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, .
EXHIBIT-P4:	A TRUE I.A.NO	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.3.2016 IN .967/2016 BY THE MACT, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT-P5:	A TRUE I.A.NO	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/3/2016 IN .968/2016 BY THE MACT, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT-P6:	A CERTI IN I.A	FIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/3/2016 .NO.969/2016 BY THE MACT, KOLLAM.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

K.V.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶25

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(MAC) No. 78 of 2016

¶26

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of July, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Petitioners are the claimants in O.P.(MV)

¶29

No.1096 of 2013 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. Accordingly, an award was passed on 26.06.2015, granting an amount of 4,31,185/- to the 1st petitioner, 4,31,184/- to the 2^nd petitioner and an amount of 2,23,559/- to the 3rd petitioner. On the basis of interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners, Tribunal allowed 1st and 2nd petitioners to withdraw an amount of 2,00,000/each and the 3^rd petitioner was allowed to withdraw an amount of `1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A. Nos.967 of 2016, 968 of 2016 and 969/2016, respectively to withdraw the balance amount in deposit from the court, evident from Exts.P1 to P3.

¶30

O.P.(MAC) No. 78 of 2016

¶31

-: 2 :-

¶32

However, the Tribunal passed Exts.P4 to P6

¶33

orders allowing the petitioners to withdraw only an amount of `50,000/- each. It is thus challenging

¶34

Exts.P4 to P6, petitioners have filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶36

petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company, perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶37

The sole question to be considered is

¶38

whether any interference is required with Exts.P4 to P6 orders passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed an amount of `50,000/- each to be withdrawn by the petitioners. However, the Tribunal found that

¶39

the petitioners have not produced any documents to

¶40

O.P.(MAC) No. 78 of 2016

¶41

-: 3 :-

¶42

get the amounts under deposit released. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners have sought release of the amount since there is urgent requirement and need for the amounts. Considering the rival submissions across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners can be permitted to withdraw a further amount of `50,000/- each. However, I find that, since petitioners contended that recovery action pursuant to the loan availed by the petitioners are pending, petitioners can be provided an opportunity to produce those documents before the Tribunal and canvass for release of the balance deposit amount. In that view of the matter, I set aside Exts.P4 to P6 and direct the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, to consider the aforesaid Interlocutory

¶43

O.P.(MAC) No. 78 of 2016

¶44

-: 4 :-

¶45

Applications. Petitioners are permitted to produce

¶46

any documents before the court in order to establish that they are entitled to get the amount released. However, a decision shall be taken by the Tribunal, within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of the copy of documents produced by petitioners.

¶47

This Original Petition (MAC) is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY,

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

DST

¶51

//True copy// P.A. To Judge

Sreedeviyamma v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedeviyamma v. the Branch Manager

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

K.P.Govindan Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Mohanan Pillai Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies (General), Kollam

P P Kannan Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Coir Marketing Federation Ltd.

Baby Sebastian Vs Dist.Collector, Kottayam

Vijayabhaskar v. Vs Branch Manager

Adam Vs State of Kerala