Disposed

Vakkayil Rahees v. Joseph

Kerala HC26 Jul 2016OP (MAC)/80/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accommodates that he is bedridden and requires funds for medical treatment. The court held the Tribunal failed to assign reasons for declining full release. An appellate order directing the Tribunal to reconsider the application and release a specific additional sum was issued. The original petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. The Respondent Tribunal is directed to release Rs. 1,50,000/- within two weeks and reconsider the remaining application within three weeks.

Vakkayil Rahees Vs Joseph — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938 OP (MAC).No. 80 of 2016 (O) ---------------------------OPMV 328/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,TIRUR ----------

¶5

PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT: -----------------------

¶6

VAKKAYIL RAHEES

¶7

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, HIDAYA HOUSE, PO., VELIMUKK SOUTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER/GUARDIAN VAKKAYIL PATHUMMA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O ABDURAHIMAN, RESIDING AT HIDAYA HOUSE, PO., VELIMUKK SOUTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676317

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS::

¶10

1. JOSEPH S/O. MANUAL, ATTIPATTI HOUSE, MALIPURAM PO., VALAPPA DESOM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682511 (DRIVER)

¶11

2. C.B. HARI, DEVI VILASAM, POOCHEKKAL P.O.,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688526(OWNER)

¶12

3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, NSS UNION BUILDING, CHERTHALA PO,ALAPUUZHA DISTRICT,688524(INSURER)

¶13

4. FASALUL RAHMAN P.T

¶14

S/O ABOOBACKER,RESIDING AT PALLIYALIL HOUSE, AREETHALA, KOLAPPURAM,AR NAGAR PO., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676305(DRIVER)

¶15

OP (MAC).No. 80 of 2016 (O)

¶16

5. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, KORAMBIYIL ARCADE, PANDIKKAD ROAD, MANJERI (PO MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676121(INSURER)

¶17

R3 BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD R5 BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE

¶18

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

OP (MAC).No. 80 of 2016 (O)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED IN OP(MV) NO.328 OF 2006 BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR DATED 19.09.2012

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1083 OF 2016 IN OPMV NO.328 OF 2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO.1083 OF 2016 IN OPMV NO.328 OF 2006 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR DATED 29.03.2016

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶30

O.P.(MAC). No. 80 of 2016

¶31

----------------------------------------

¶32

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioner, claimant in OP(MV)No.328/2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Tirur has secured Ext.P1 Award for an amount of Rs.11,71,500/with interest. As per Ext.P1 Award, the mother/guardian of the petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.3,00,000/and the balance compensation amount with interest was directed to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 12 years by providing liberty to the mother / guardian of the petitioner to withdraw the portion of the interest as and when required.

¶35

The mother of the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application seeking release of the entire balance amount, since the petitioner, who is bed ridden is undergoing treatment, large amounts are required to meet the treatment expenses. The Tribunal has passed Ext.P3 order, which is impugned in this Original Petition. As per

¶36

O.P.(MAC). No. 80 of 2016

¶37

¶38

Ext.P3 order, Tribunal has released an amount of

¶39

Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner. It is aggrieved by Ext.P3, petitioner has filed this Original Petition.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 5 and perused the documents and pleadings on record.

¶41

The question to be considered is whether any interference in Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal is required. On a reading of Ext.P3, it is categoric and clear that, the Tribunal has not assigned any reason at all to decline the relief sought for by the petitioner in its absolute terms.

¶42

Therefore, it is only just and proper that Ext.P3 order is set aside and direct the Tribunal to re-consider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with the grievances put forth by the petitioner and pass an order assigning reasons for release of amounts or non-release of the amounts. On the basis of the pleadings in the original petition, I think it is only appropriate that a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/-

¶43

O.P.(MAC). No. 80 of 2016

¶44

¶45

can be directed to be released to the petitioner within two

¶46

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall re-consider Ext.P2 application in accordance with the directions contained above, and take a decision on the same, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

Needless to say, the Tribunal shall take into account the need put forth by the mother of the petitioner and consider the same with all seriousness, since it is contended that, it is for meeting treatment of the petitioner that the amount is required by the mother of the petitioner. Petitioner also will be at liberty to produce necessary documents before the Tribunal to substantiate the claim put forth by the petitioner.

¶48

Original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶51

dlk/26/7/

Vakkayil Rahees v. Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakkayil Rahees v. Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreedeviyamma Vs the Branch Manager

Baby Sebastian Vs Dist.Collector, Kottayam

Vijayabhaskar v. Vs Branch Manager

Saseendraraj Vs Reshma

E.A. Ouseph Vs Karuvannur Service Co-Operaticve Bank

The Kerala State Co-Op.Employees Pension Vs M.K.Santha