Quashed

Santhakumari v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C)

Kerala HC10 Jan 2023OP (MAC)/4/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the MACT's dismissal of applications to release compensation invested in a fixed deposit. The High Court held that rigid adherence to FDR mandates violates Supreme Court guidelines requiring case-by-case assessment. Consequently, impugned orders were quashed, and the matter remitted to the MACT for a fresh decision within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders setting aside release of fixed deposit amount are quashed. Matter remitted to MACT for fresh decision within 15 days.

Santhakumari Vs the Kerala State Road Transport… — 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

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 20TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

OP (MAC) NO. 4 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 468/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS 1 TO 2 IN THE CLAIM APPLICATION:

¶8

1 SANTHAKUMARI

¶9

AGED 42 YEARS
D/O BABY, A.S.BHAVAN, KURICHIVILA MELE PUTHENVEEDU,
PURAVOOR, MANIVILA, MANIVILA.P.O,
TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT., PIN – 695581

¶10

2ASHA A S
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O SANTHAKUMARI, A.S.BHAVAN,
KURICHIVILA MELE PUTHENVEEDU, PURAVOOR, MANIVILA,
MANIVILA.P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT., PIN – 695581

¶11

BY ADVS.
RINU. S. ASWAN
S.SUDHEESH
GOPIKA H.H
DHARUN P.
AYYAPPADAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS AND PETITIONERS 3 TO 5 IN THE CLAIM APPLICATION:

¶13

1THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (K.S.R.T.C)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
EAST FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695023

¶14

2VIJIL SINGH
AGE NOT KNOWN, DRIVER, KSRTC,
S/O. SUKUMAR,
VATTAVILLA, PUTHENVEEDU,
MURIYATHOTTAM P.O, PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. , PIN - 695502

¶15

OP (MAC) NO. 4 OF 2023

¶16

2

¶17

3ANOOP
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O. SANTHAKUMARI, A.S.BHAVAN,
KURICHIVILA MELE PUTHENVEEDU, PURAVOOR, MANIVILA,
MANIVILA.P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. , PIN – 695581

¶18

BY ADV KEERTHIVAS GIRI
SRI.DEEPU THANKAN -SC KSRTC

¶19

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

OP (MAC) NO. 4 OF 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Petitioners herein are the claimants Nos.1 and 2 before the MACT, who preferred O.P.(MV)No.468/2015 in respect of an accident taken place on 04.05.2015 at 8.20.P.M. One Anilraj, who was riding a bike bearing Registration No.TN-75-P-9723 had unfortunately died in the accident occurred with the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KL-15-4717. Another O.P.(MV) was also filed on behalf of the pillion rider of the deceased. The learned MACT vide common award dated 23.02.2021 assessed the compensation. As far as the compensation in the case of the petitioners in O.P.(MV)No.468/2015 is concerned, an amount of Rs.19,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% from 22.05.2015 was determined. Claimants were entitled to get proportionate cost also. The 1^st petitioner was awarded 30% whereas applicants 2 and 3 (petitioner No.2 and respondent No.3 herein) 20% each and applicants 4 and 5, 15% each. KSRTC was directed to transfer the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the bank account of the 1^st petitionerclaimant No.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- to the bank account of 1^st , 2^nd , 4^th and 5^th claimants as well and the said amount was permitted to

¶24

OP (MAC) NO. 4 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

be withdrawn. The rest of the amount was also ordered to be deposited by way of a cheque to be put in a fixed deposit for a period of three years. It is contended that applications Exts.P2 and P3 were submitted for release of the amount on account of the fact that for performing the marriage of the second petitioner, a sum of R.15,00,000/- was taken as loan. The learned MACT without assigning any reasons dismissed the application only on the ground that the period of FD is not over.

¶27

Learned counsel for the KSRTC takes notice and submits that the three years period of FD would expire in 2024. Petitioners are enjoying the benefit of the interest and therefore there was no necessity for the Tribunal to pass a detailed order.

¶28

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that judgment Ext.P6 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein guidelines have been laid down with regard to the release of the compensation lying in deposit in the shape of FD.

¶29

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

¶30

OP (MAC) NO. 4 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

5. The impugned orders read thus:

¶33

“Ext.P4

¶34

Heard. Perused records, Award is dated 23.02.2021. Initial payment seen made to petitioner. Hence as maturity of the deposit is yet to come, I find that at present no amount be released to petitioner and I.A. is dismissed.

¶35

Ext.P5

¶36

Heard. Perused records Rs.2 lakh was ordered to be released to petitioner on 09.03.2022. Maturity period of deposit is not over. Award is dated 23.02.2021. hence I find that at present no amount be released to petitioner and I.A. is dismissed.”

¶37

The orders aforementioned do not even discuss the

¶38

contention of the petitioners much less of the other side. It appears that even notice was not issued to other side. Be that as it may. In the judgment Ext.P6 in para 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶39

“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

¶40

OP (MAC) NO. 4 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi-

¶43

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.

¶44

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 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

¶45

OP (MAC) NO. 4 OF 2023

¶46

¶47

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.”

¶48

7. I am of the view that the learned MACT ought to have

¶49

pondered upon the grievance of the petitioners for release of the amount lying in deposit as no useful purpose would be served if the amount is kept in FDR and the petitioners are constrained to obtain a private loan at higher rate of interest. Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside. Matter is remitted to MACT to decide the applications afresh within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment in terms of the judgment Ext.P6 of the Supreme Court.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

nak

OP (MAC) NO. 4 OF 2023

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 4/2023

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN O.P (M.V) NO.
468 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE
M.A.C.T, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 23.02.21

¶59

Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
DATED 04.06.22 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION

¶60

Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
DATED 04.06.22 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION

¶61

Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I. A NO. 5 OF
2022 ON THE FILES OF O.P (M.V) NO. 468 OF
15 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE M.A.C.T,
NEYYATTINKARA DATED 24.06.22.

¶62

Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I. A NO. 6 OF
2022 ON THE FILES OF O.P (M.V) NO. 468 OF
15 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE M.A.C.T,
NEYYATTINKARA DATED 24.06.22.

¶63

Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN PADMA A.V AND
ORS. V. VENUGOPAL AND ORS.

Santhakumari v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhakumari v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Lalitha, Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Rasheeda Vs Kerala State Eletricity Board Limited

All Kerala Motor Driving School Instructors & Workers Association Vs Union of India

Damodaran T.V Vs the District Executive Officer

Ambika M Vs State of Kerala

Antil K Antony, Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority