Allowed

Melbarani P @ Mallika v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

Kerala HC27 Mar 2017OP (MAC)/38/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition challenged an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal requiring petitioners to furnish security for releasing the award amount due to non-minor claimants. The High Court set aside the Tribunal order and directed immediate release of the amount.

What did the court decide?

Order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal directing petitioners to furnish security is set aside; Tribunal directed to release the amount due to petitioners forthwith.

Melbarani P @ Mallika Vs Reliance General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/6TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 38 of 2017 (O)

¶6

---------------------------(EA.NO.53/2006 IN EP.NO.99/2015 IN OP(MV).NO. 1482/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. MELBARANI P @ MALLIKA, WIDOW OF RAJAKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS,

¶9

RESIDING AT HACKER STREET, ERANIEL VILLAGE, ATHIVILAI PANCHAYATH, NEYYOOR P.O, KANNIYAKUMARI DISTRICT , T.N.

¶10

2. R.JEBARANI (MINOR), D/O. LATE RAJAKUMAR, AGED 15 YEARS,

¶11

RESIDING AT HACKER STREET, ERANIEL VILLAGE, ATHIVILAI PANCHAYATH, NEYYOOR P.O, KANNIYAKUMARI DISTRICT , T.N.

¶12

3. R. SATHISHKUMAR (MINOR), S/O. LATE RAJAKUMAR, AGED 14 YEARS,

¶13

RESIDING AT HACKER STREET,ERANIEL VILLAGE, ATHIVILAI PANCHAYATH, NEYYOOR P.O, KANNIYAKUMARI DISTRICT , T.N.

¶14

4. VASANTHA, M/O. LATE RAJAKUMAR, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT HACKER STREET,ERANIEL VILLAGE, ATHIVILAI PANCHAYATH, NEYYOOR P.O, KANNIYAKUMARI DISTRICT , TAMIL NADU (MINOR PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST PETITIONER)

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON

SRI.P.S.APPU

SRI.A.R.NIMOD

RESPONDENT:

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶20

BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶21

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sts

¶23

OP (MAC).No. 38 of 2017 (O)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A. NO. 53/2016 IN E.P NO.99/2015 IN OP(MV), NO. 1482/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM DATED 23.2.2016.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A. NO. 52/2016 IN E.P NO.99/2015 IN OP(MV) NO. 1482/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KOTTAYAM DATED 23.2.2016.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶33

O.P.(MAC) No.38 of 2017

¶34

Dated this the 27^th day of March, 2017

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioners are the claimants in O.P(MV) No.1482 of

¶37

2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

¶38

Kottayam. The claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal granting a sum of Rs.14,82,000/- to the petitioners, by way of compensation. Pursuant to the award, the respondent deposited the award amount. It is stated that as per the terms of the award, the compensation payable to the minor claimants were directed to be deposited till they attain the age of majority. The petitioners, therefore, preferred an application for release of the award amount due in respect of other claimants. The said application has been allowed by the Tribunal on condition that the petitioners shall furnish security for the same. Ext.P2 is the order issued by the Tribunal in this

¶39

O.P.(MAC) No.38 of 2017

¶40

-2-

¶41

connection. Ext.P2 is under challenge in this original petition.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶43

It appears that the Tribunal directed the petitioners to furnish security for the reason that an appeal has been preferred by the respondent against the award. It is conceded that there is no stay in the appeal preferred by the respondent against the award. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for the Tribunal to direct the petitioners to furnish security for release of the amount covered by the award. Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal is, accordingly, set aside and the Tribunal is directed to release the amount due to the petitioners 1 and 4 forthwith.

¶44

The original petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶47

bpr

Melbarani P @ Mallika v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Melbarani P @ Mallika v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

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

Salam T.A Vs Shaji

Prasanna O. Vs India Infoline Finance Limited

Nimmy Majo Vs the Kerala University of Health Science

Rajendran M Vs M.G Rajamanikyam

Meera Vs the Secretary, Rta

Commissioner Vs K.M.Vasanthakumari