Remanded

Mammi v. Nasreen

Kerala HC16 Jan 2023OP (MAC)/9/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows O.P.(MAC) Nos.9 and 10 of 2023, remitting them to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for release of 15% compensation kept in fixed deposit. The Court set aside an impugned order dismissing premature withdrawal, citing Supreme Court guidelines against mechanical investment orders for literate persons requiring funds for genuine needs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.01.2022 set aside; matter remitted to MACT to release 15% of fixed deposit amount to claimants for house repairs within one month.

Mammi Vs Nasreen — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 26TH POUSHA, 1944
OP (MAC) NO. 9 OF 2023

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 23/2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/3RD PETITIONER:

¶7

MAMMI,
AGED 75 YEARS,
S/O. SAIDALI,
PUTHAN VEETTIL HOUSE, MEEMPARA,
THOZHUVANUR P.O., VALANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676552.

¶8

BY ADVS.
C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
P.ABDUL NISHAD
RAIHANATH T.H.
ISTINAF ABDULLAH
MUHAMMED AMEEN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1,2,4 & 5 AND RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1NASREEN,
D/O. ABDUL NASAR,
W/O. MOHAMED SHAFEEQUE, METHIYIL HOUSE,
ARIPEEDIYENGAL, PONMUNDAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676106

¶11

2MOHAMMED SHEZIN (MINOR),
REP. BY MOTHER NASREEN
AGED 6 YEARS,
D/O. ABDU NASAR,
W/O. MOHAMED SHAFEEQUE, METHIYIL HOUSE,
ARIPEEDIYENGAL, PONMUNDAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN – 676106

¶12

3JAMEELA,
D/O. MAMMIKUTTY,
PUTHAN VEETTIL HOUSE, MEEMPARA,
THOZHUVANUR P.O., VALANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676552

¶13

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023-2-

¶14

4 KHAIRUNNISA ABDULKADER, W/O. ABDULKADER, MANATTIL HOUSE, KARIPOLE P.O., ATHAVANAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676552

¶15

5 UMARUL FAROOQ, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, THOROPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOZHUVANUR P.O., VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676552

¶16

6 THAHIRA, W/O. MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, KALITHODI HOUSE, KAIPURAM P.O., NADUVATTAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679308

¶17

7 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, THAZHEPALAM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, GP

¶18

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023

¶20

-3-

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 26TH POUSHA, 1944

¶23

OP (MAC) NO. 10 OF 2023

¶24

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 23/2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT

¶25

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR

¶26

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/4TH PETITIONER:

¶27

JAMEELA,
AGED 73 YEARS,
D/O. MAMMIKUTTY,
PUTHAN VEETTIL HOUSE, MEEMPARA,
THOZHUVANUR P.O., VALANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676552

¶28

BY ADV
C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶29

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1,2,3 & 5 AND

¶30

RESPONDENTS:

¶31

1NASREEN,
AGED 30 YEARS,
D/O. ABDUL NASAR,
W/O. MOHAMED SHAFEEQUE, METHIYIL HOUSE,
ARIPEEDIYENGAL, PONMUNDAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676106

¶32

2MOHAMMED SHEZIN (MINOR),
REP. BY MOTHER NASREEN,
AGED 6 YEARS,
D/O. ABDU NASAR, W/O. MOHAMED SHAFEEQUE,
METHIYIL HOUSE, ARIPEEDIYENGAL, PONMUNDAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676106

¶33

3 MAMMI, AGED 75 YEARS,

¶34

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023-4-

¶35

S/O. SAIDALI, PUTHAN VEETTIL HOUSE,
MEEMPARA, THOZHUVANUR P.O., VALANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676552

¶36

4 KHAIRUNNISA ABDULKADER, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. ABDULKADER, MANATTIL HOUSE, KARIPOLE P.O., ATHAVANAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN – 676552

¶37

5UMARUL FAROOQ,
AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, THOROPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THOZHUVANUR P.O., VALANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN – 676552

¶38

6THAHIRA,
AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O. MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, KALITHODI HOUSE,
KAIPURAM P.O., NADUVATTAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679308

¶39

7 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, THAZHEPALA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676101 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶40

BY ADV.

¶41

SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP

¶42

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶43

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023-5-

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

This order of mine shall decide two O.P.s bearing O.P.(MAC) Nos.9 and 10 of 2023 arising out of the order dated 19.01.2022 in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 in O.P.(MV) No.23 of 2017 for rejecting the application of the parents of the deceased for premature withdrawal of the amount in fixed deposits. Both the petitioners are the claimants in O.P.No.23 of 2017 filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on account of the death of Mr.Muhammed Shafeeq in a road traffic accident on 26.03.2016. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) vide award dated 16.10.2019 assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs.57,65,000/- (Rupees Fifty seven lakh sixty five thousand only) under various heads, along with the interest at the rate of 7% on the amount from the date of petition till the date of deposit with a direction to the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each directly to Nasreen petitioner No.1 and Jameela Petitioner

¶46

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023-6-

¶47

No.4 in O.P.(MV) No.23 of 2017; Rs.2,00,000/- directly to the petitioner in O.P.(MAC)No.9 of 2023, Mammi, mother of the deceased; balance 40% was ordered to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank as fixed deposit in the name of Muhammed Shezin, the minor child till he attains his age of majority; 30% in the name of Nasreen for a period of five years and 15% each in the name of the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in OP(MV) No.23 of 2017. I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 have been filed by the claimants for release of the amount in the FDR to the extent of 15% by giving details of the FDR on account that the money is required for repair of the house, by enclosing a copy of the certificate dated 07.12.2021 of Chairman of the Municipality, Valancherry. It was stated that all the family members are living in a house which is in a dilapidated condition and liable to collapse at any moment. Det ails of the FDR were also given. Learned MACT dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 19.01.2022, which is extracted hereinbelow:

¶48

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023

¶49

-7-

¶50

“Common Order passed in IA3/2021 and IA 4/2021 in OP(MV)23/2017.

¶51

These petitions are filed by the parents of the deceased for premature withdrawal of the amount in fixed deposit.

¶52

The reason state for money is repair of their house. But it is to be noted that for the very same purpose they were allowed to withdraw Rs.4,00,000/- each ie,; total Rs.8,00,000/- what all are the works done with that money, what is the balance work etc., are not stated. Apart from a letter from chairman of Municipality that petitioners require money for house construction, there is o convincing material to show that petitioner actually spent the earlier amount for the house repair and still needs money for completing the work. Under these circumstances I am not inclined to release the amount prematurely. Hence both these petitions are dismissed.”

¶53

The order do not discuss neither the contention

¶54

nor the certificate in extenso which is against the judgment of honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1095 of 2012 Padma A.V. and Others Vs. V.Venugopal and Others decided on 27.01.2012

¶55

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023-8-

¶56

wherein, certain conditions, considering the predicament of the claimants for release of the amou nt lying in deposit, have been laid down.

¶57

Learned counsel for the Insurance company submitted that the order is perfectly illegal and justified and do not require any interference.

¶58

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

¶59

In paragraph No.5 of the judgment cited supra, it was laid as under:

¶60

“5. Thus, 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. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors,

¶61

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023

¶62

-9-

¶63

illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi-literate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits.

¶64

However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having

¶65

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023-10-

¶66

regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him. The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice.”

¶67

6. I am of the view that learned MACT ought to

¶68

have honoured the grievance of the petitioners for release of the amount lying in the FDR as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the amount in FDR

¶69

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023-11-

¶70

without utilisation. Petitioners may not be constrained to obtain a private loan for repair of house. Accordingly the impugned common order dated 19.1.2022 is set aside. And the matter is remitted to MACT. Learned MACT is directed to release the amount of 15% lying in the FDR in favour of the petitioners who are claimant Nos.3 and 4 O.P.(MV) No.23 of 2017 subject to the compliance of any conditions, in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment .

¶71

Original petitions are disposed off.

¶72

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶73

vv

¶74

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023-12-

¶75

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 9/2023

¶76

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶77

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN
OP(MV)NO. 23/2017 OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED
16.10.2019

¶78

Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 3/2021 IN
OP(MV)NO. 23/2017 OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED
21.12.2021 ALONG WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION

¶79

Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF VALANCHERRY
MUNICIPALITY DATED 7.12.2021 ALONG
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶80

Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN
I.A.3/2021 IN OP(MV) 23/2017 OF THE
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR
DATED 19.01.2022

¶81

OP(MAC)NOS.9 & 10 OF 2023

¶82

-13-

¶83

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 10/2023

¶84

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶85

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN
OP(MV)NO. 23/2017 OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED
16.10.2019

¶86

Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 4/2021 IN
OP(MV)NO. 23/2017 OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED
21.12.2021 ALONG WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION

¶87

Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF VALANCHERRY
MUNICIPALITY DATED 7.12.2021 ALONG
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶88

Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN
I.A.4/2021 IN OP(MV) 23/2017 OF THE
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR
DATED 19.01.2022

Mammi v. Nasreen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mammi v. Nasreen

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

C.K. Jyothi Raj, Vs The Regional Transport Authority

M.M.Alias Vs the Provident Fund Commissioner

Edarikkode Textiles Vs Sundararajan P.N

Kurian George, Vs the State Information Commission

Sreeniketana Logistics Ltd. Vs the Director

Jameela Vs Nasreen