Remanded

Sangeeth v. Shiyas

Kerala HC14 Dec 2018OP (MAC)/119/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court exercised Article 227 jurisdiction to set aside a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order that released partial compensation without recording reasons. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the application for fund release and pass a reasoned order within two months, citing Supreme Court precedents on reasoned decisions and fund management.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P3 order dated 17.8.2018; Tribunal directed to reconsider I.A.No.2719/2018 and pass a reasoned order within two months.

Sangeeth Vs Shiyas — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 119 of 2018

¶6

OPMV 1312/2010 of MACT ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

SANGEETH AGED 35 YEARS S/O SIMON, VALAVATH CHIRAYIL HOUSE, LEPROSY JUNCTION, KALAVOOR P.O, ALAPPUZHE-688522

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SHIYAS AGED 33 YEARS S/O ABDUL KADER, KALLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNANCHERY P.O, ALAPPUZHA-688538

¶12

2 BABU.K.M AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MANIYAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE, POONTHOPPU WARD, ALAPUZHA-688013.

¶13

3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD BRANCH OFFICE, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA-688011.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.K.S.SANTHI, STANDING COUNSEL SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

¶15

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶17

:-2-:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner, who is the claimant in O.P. (MV)No.1312/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P3 order dated 17.8.2018 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, in I.A.No.2719/2018 in O.P. (MV)No.1312/2010, whereby the said interlocutory application is allowed in part ordering release of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner, out of Rs.5,66,607/- lying in fixed deposit.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶21

petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel

¶22

for the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company.

¶23

Considering the nature of relief proposed to be

¶24

granted service of notice on respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver respectively of the

¶25

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶26

:-3-:

¶27

offending vehicle in O.P.(MV)No.1312/2010, is dispensed with, since at the time of accident, the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy and the 3^rd respondent insurer has been saddled with the liability to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, together with interest and cost.

¶28

The sole issue that arises for

¶29

consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference under Article 227 of the

¶30

Constitution of India is warranted on Ext.P3 order dated 17.8.2018 of the Tribunal in I.A.No.2719/2018 in O.P.(MV)No.1312/2010.

¶31

The petitioner, who sustained injuries in a

¶32

motor accident, which occurred on 30.4.2008, at 6.30 a.m. while he was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.KL-4/V-369, has filed O.P.

¶33

(MV)No.1312/2010 before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a

¶34

total compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- from the

¶35

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶36

:-4-:

¶37

respondents herein, for the injuries sustained, as

¶38

the vehicle went off the road and hit on a tree. The petitioner sustained crush injury on his left hand and lacerated wounds on his forehead, face, forearm, etc. At the time of accident, he was aged 27 years and was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal assessed 50% permanent disability and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,94,500/- together with 9% interest from 20.12.2010 till realisation with proportionate costs. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of Ext.P1 award dated 31.12.2016 in O.P.(MV)No.1312/2010 read thus;

¶39

“15. Issue No.4:In view of the findings in issue Nos.1 to 3 above O.P. is allowed in part and an award is passed in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.5,94,500/(Rupees five lakhs ninety four thousand five hundred only) with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 20.12.2010 till realisation with proportionate costs.

¶40

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶41

:-5-:

¶42

In the result:-

¶43

The third respondent insurer shall produce one crossed cheque or demand draft for an amount of Rs.6,873/- in the name of MACT, Alapuzha towards Court fee.

¶44

The third respondent shall produce one crossed cheque or demand draft for Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of the petitioner to be released to him forthwith.

¶45

The third respondent shall produce another crossed cheque or demand draft for the balance amount with interest and costs in the name of the petitioner to be deposited in a nationalized bank for a period of 3 years, from the date of award.

¶46

The petitioner shall furnish his PAN number to the third respondent within 15 days from today and the third respondent shall deposit the amounts as directed above, along with TDS certificate if any within 30 days from the date of award with notice to the petitioner.

¶47

Free copy of the award will be issued to both sides within 15 days from today.

¶48

Parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all documents which they may wish to preserve as the

¶49

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶50

:-6-:

¶51

records are liable to be destroyed after 12 years from this date.”

¶52

In terms of Ext.P1 award, the petitioner

¶53

was disbursed with a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶54

Thereafter, the petitioner moved I.A.No.2719/2018, seeking an order to release a sum of Rs.5,66,607/which is kept in Fixed Deposit. In the affidavit accompanying to that interlocutory application, it is averred that the petitioner who sustained permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident require the balance amount kept in fixed deposit for clearing his liabilities. The Tribunal by Ext.P3 order dated 17.8.2018 ordered release of a sum of Rs.1 lakh.

¶55

Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal reads thus; “Release One Lakh rupees only.”

¶56

In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers

¶57

Workers Union [(1974) 3 SCC 318] the Apex Court, while considering the challenge made against an

¶58

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶59

:-7-:

¶60

award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, held that the giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not

¶61

appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the

¶62

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶63

:-8-:

¶64

appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi judicial authorities to the Apex Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to

¶65

wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions.

¶66

In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC

¶67

785] the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by

¶68

the action of the authorities should be given

¶69

notice to show cause thereof and granted an

¶70

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶71

:-9-:

¶72

opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so

¶73

passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction.

¶74

In Shukla and Brothers' case (supra) the

¶75

Apex Court held further that, a litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in

¶76

accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons

¶77

for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of

¶78

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶79

:-10-:

¶80

justice. These principles are not only applicable

¶81

to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment.

¶82

In English v. Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd.

¶83

[(2002) 1 WLR 2409] the Court of Appeal held that,

¶84

a judicial decision which affected the substantive rights of the parties should be reasoned, although some judicial decisions, e.g. interlocutory case management decisions, did not require reasons; that, while a judge was not obliged to deal with every argument or identify or explain every factor

¶85

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶86

:-11-:

¶87

which weighed with him, the issues the resolution

¶88

of which were vital to his conclusion should be identified and the manner in which he resolved them briefly but clearly explained, so that the judgment enabled the parties and any appellate tribunal readily to analyse the reasoning essential to his decision.

¶89

In the instant case, a reading of Ext.P3

¶90

order passed by the Tribunal does not disclose any reason whatsoever for limiting the relief sought for in I.A.No.2719/2018 by ordering release of only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Though Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal is not an order appealable under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it can be subjected to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal, virtually makes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court nugatory and ineffective, inasmuch as, such an

¶91

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶92

:-12-:

¶93

order which does not disclose any reasons will be of little assistance to this Court, while analysing the reasoning essential to such a decision. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal, to the extent it is under challenge in this original petition cannot be sustained in law.

¶94

In Jyni v. Raphel P.T. [(2016) 2 KLT (SN

¶95

40) Case No.32] , a Division Bench of this Court held that, in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994 (2) SCC 176)

¶96

the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines to be

¶97

followed in the matter of investment of the

¶98

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in order to

¶99

safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. However, in

¶100

A.V.Padma v. R.Venugopal (2012 (3) SCC 378) the

¶101

Apex Court deprecated the mechanical approach of

¶102

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶103

:-13-:

¶104

the Tribunals in ordering deposit of the compensation amount in long-term fixed deposit, without considering genuine requirements of the claimants and ignoring the object and spirit of the guidelines as laid down in Susamma Thomas' case (supra) . In A.V.Padma's case (supra) the Apex Court clarified the guidelines laid down in Susamma Thomas' case (supra) , by observing that sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. The Apex Court clarified further that, the above guidelines were issued by the Court only to

¶105

safeguard the interests of the claimants,

¶106

particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some

¶107

fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be

¶108

understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take

¶109

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶110

:-14-:

¶111

a rigid stand while considering an application

¶112

seeking release of the money and that, the guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits.

¶113

In such circumstances, this original

¶114

petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P3 order dated 17.8.2018 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, in I.A.No.2719/2018 in O.P. (MV)No.1312/2010 to the extent it is under

¶115

challenge in this original petition, and the Tribunal is directed to re-consider

¶116

I.A.No.2719/2018, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 3^rd respondent insurer, and pass a reasoned order, taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, as expeditiously

¶117

as possible, at any rate within a period of two

¶118

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶119

O.P.(MAC)No.119 of 2018

¶120

:-15-:

¶121

It would be open to the petitioner/claimant to

¶122

produce necessary materials before the Tribunal to substantiate the facts stated in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.2719/2018.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

ami/17.12.18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶129

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN O.P. (MV)1312/2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA DATED 31/12/2016.

¶130

EXHIBIT P1(a) TYPED LEGIBLE COPY OF EXHIBIT P1 AWARD.

¶131

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2719/2018 IN O.P.(MV)1312/2010 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA DATED 28/07/2018.

¶132

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA IN THE IA.NO.2719/2018 IN O.P. (MV)NO.1312/2010 DATED 17/08/2018.

Sangeeth v. Shiyas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeth v. Shiyas

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

Dr.Meera Devi.S Vs Govt. of Kerala

Muhammed Riswan K.A. Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

Noushad P.a., Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

Gangadharan T.V Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Kabeer Vs the Regional Transport Authority

The Tirur Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies