Allowed

M.K.Jayasree @ Jaya v. the Branch Manager,U/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC28 Jul 2016OP (MAC)/79/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising Article 226 jurisdiction, directed the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to release Rs. 5,00,000 out of the deposited compensation. The Court referenced prior precedent regarding the non-mandatory nature of long-term investment for literate persons and ordered the Tribunal to reconsider the remaining application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release Rs. 5,00,000 and disregard mandatory investment rule; directive to reconsider balance application within two months.

M.K.Jayasree @ Jaya Vs the Branch Manager,U/S.United India… — Insurance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2016/6TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 79 of 2016 (O)

¶6

(I.A.NO.2330/2016 IN OP(MV).NO.1822/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA)

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/CLAIMANT :

¶8

M.K.JAYASREE @ JAYA,

¶9

AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. NARAYANAN PILLAI, SREE VILASAM, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶11

SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶14

BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶15

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶16

ON 28-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

OP (MAC).No. 79 of 2016 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 12-08-2015 IN O.P.(MV) NO. 1822 OF 2008 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21-04-2016 UNDER WHICH THE CHEQUES WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MACT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO. 2330 OF 2016 OF O.P.(MV)NO. 1822 OF 2008 DATED 29-04-2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MACT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-05-2016 IN I.A.NO. 2330 OF 2016 IN OP(MV)NO. 1822 OF 2008 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶31

O.P.(MAC)NO.79 OF 2016

¶32

Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Petitioner is a claimant in OP(MV)NO.1822/2016 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta (hereinafter called the Tribunal). Tribunal passed Ext.P1 award granting a compensation of Rs.11,78,819/- (Rupees eleven lakhs seventy eight thousand eight hundred and nineteen only) with 9% interest per annum from 31.12.2008, till realisation and also proportionate cost of Rs.72,002/- (Rupees seventy two thousand two only). The respondent was directed to deposit the amount and out of the amount deposited, petitioner was permitted to with draw of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The balance amount was directed to be invested with a Nationalised Bank for a period of three years. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application seeking release of the balance amount of Rs.17,01,303/(Rupees seventeen lakhs one thousand three hundred

¶35

O.P.(MAC)NO.79 OF 2016

¶36

¶37

and three only) which was dismissed by the Tribunal as per Ext.P4 order. It is thus aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, petitioner has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company. The prime contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, petitioner has availed a loan from a Co-operative Bank and further that the petitioner requires money for her treatment. The husband of the petitioner is looking after the petitioner after the accident and consequent to which he has lost his employment also. However, the Tribunal has entered a finding that petitioner has failed to produce any document to support the submissions made by the petitioner seeking release of the amounts deposited with the bank. It was also found that the certificate produced by the petitioner with respect to the loan secured from Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank is not above doubt. It is thus by

¶39

O.P.(MAC)NO.79 OF 2016 3

¶40

Ext.P4 the relief sought for by the petitioner for release of the entire balance amount was declined.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment of this court in [Gopalakrishnan Nair V Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram and Another 2003

¶42

(1) KLJ 654] , wherein a proposition of law laid down by this court to the effect that in the case of literate persons it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit and the Tribunal shall not take any rigid stand for the release of the amount.

¶43

Taking in to account the factual circumstances and reckoning the proposition of law put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that a direction can be issued to the Tribunal to release an amount of Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees five lakhs only) within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and reconsider Ext.P3 application after providing time to

¶44

O.P.(MAC)NO.79 OF 2016 4

¶45

the petitioner to produce requisite documents to substantiate her claim put forth by the petitioner in Ext.P3 application. At any rate, the Tribunal shall reconsider Ext.P3 application and take a decision on the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, taking into account the proposition of law laid down by this court quoted above.

¶46

Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶47

sd/-

¶48

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶49

R.AV

M.K.Jayasree @ Jaya v. the Branch Manager,U/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Jayasree @ Jaya v. the Branch Manager,U/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Rajappan Vs Secretary to Govt.

Latha Vs the Manager

A.K.Sasidharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Pullisseri Mohsina Vs Shahjahan K.M.

Satheesh Vs Cholamandalam General Insurance Company

Shyam Mohan Vs the Regional Transport Authority