Anish Kumar v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **OP (MAC).No. 29 of 2019** **ORDER DATED 23.07.2018 IN I.A.No.3619 OF 2018 IN OPMV 1144 OF 2013 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT& MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALIII,PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **ANISH KUMAR AGED 39 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY T.K., KRISHNA BHAVAN HOUSE, KUMPLAMPOIKA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA** **BY ADV. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** ## **RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KIZHAKKEDAM COMPLEX, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC** **THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP (MAC).No.29 of 2019 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was the claimant in O.P.(M.V.)No. 1144/2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Pathanamthitta, which was a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 24.08.2013. In the said claim petition, the Tribunal passed Ext.P1 award dated 08.12.2017, whereby the petitioner was awarded with a total compensation of `13,27,616/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and proportionate cost. 2. In compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P1 award, the respondent herein, the insurer of the offending vehicle, deposited the amount of compensation with interest and cost before the Tribunal. As per the said award, the petitioner has already been disbursed with an amount of `6,00,000/-. The petitioner filed I.A. No.3619/2018 before the Tribunal, seeking permission to withdraw further amount, in order to meet the construction expenses of his residential building. In support of the claim made in that interlocutory **OP (MAC).No.29 of 2019 3** application, the petitioner has produced Ext.P3 building permit and also Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. The Tribunal after considering the said documents passed Ext.P5 order dated 23.07.2018, whereby I.A.No.3619/2018 stands dismissed. Ext.P5 order reads thus: - “This is a petition filed under Sec.151 of C.P.C. to release the fixed deposit amount of `12,59,543 deposited in the name of the petitioner upon the claim u/s.166 of the MV Act, awarded on 8.12.2017. - The petitioner already received `6,00,000/- on 25.04.2018 as the award passed on 08.12.2017, where the amount deposited would mature only on 03.05.2020. Under this circumstances as no evidence to believe the claim of the petitioner. Hence petition is dismissed.” 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court with this original petition under Article 227 of the constitution seeking an order directing the Tribunal to disburse the entire amount of `12,59,543/-, as sought for in I.A.No.3619/2018. 4. On 14.03.2019, when this original petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Insurer sought time to get instructions. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Insurer. **OP (MAC).No.29 of 2019 4** 6. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P5 order dated 23.07.2018 of the Tribunal in I.A.No.3619/2018 in O.P(M.V.)No.1144/2013, whereby the request made by the petitioner to release a sum of `12,59,543/- towards the balance compensation awarded in Ext.P1 award in O.P.(MV)No.1144/2013, stands rejected. 7. As can be seen from Ext.P1 award, in the accident, the petitioner sustained 30% disability. According to the petitioner, on account of the injuries sustained, he is having limitation of motion of knee. A reading of Ext.P1 award would show that out of `13,27,616/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation, a sum of `3,49,766/- is towards medical expenses covered by Ext.A13 series of medical bills; a sum of `18,000/- is towards bystander's expenses; a sum of `54,000/is towards loss of earnings; a sum of `52,650/- is towards transportation to hospital, covered by A14 series of bills; a sum of `10,000/- is towards extra nourishment; and a sum of `2,000/- is towards damage to clothing and articles. Therefore, as against `6,00,000/- already disbursed to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 award, he had incurred medical and other **OP (MAC).No.29 of 2019 5** expenses for a total sum of `4,86,416/-. 8. In **Jyni v. Raphel P.T. [(2016) 2 KLT (SN 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)** the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines to be followed in the matter of investment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in order to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. However, in **A.V.Padma v. R.Venugopal (2012 (3) SCC 378)** the Apex Court deprecated the mechanical approach of 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 **OP (MAC).No.29 of 2019 6** literate persons. The Apex Court clarified further that, the above guidelines were issued by the 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 and that, the guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. 9. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the decision referred to supra, this Court finds that Ext.P5 order dated 23.07.2018 of the Tribunal in I.A.No.3619/2018 warrants interference in this original petition, since as against `6,00,000/- already disbursed to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 award, he had incurred medical and other expenses for a total sum of `4,88,416/-. In such circumstances, this original petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P5 order dated 23.07.2018 of the Tribunal in I.A.No.3619/2018 in O.P.(MV)No.1144/2013 and by directing **OP (MAC).No.29 of 2019 7** the Tribunal to reconsider the aforesaid interlocutory application, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the decision referred to supra, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** DCS **OP (MAC).No.29 of 2019 8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO. 1144/2013 DATED 8/12/2017 OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-III, PATHANAMTHITTA** **EXHIBIT P2** - **A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A. NO.3619/2018 DATED 3/7/2018 BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-III, PATHANAMTHITTA.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 8/1/2018 ISSUED BY THE VADASSERYKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/6/2018 ISSUED BY THE VADASSERYKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 3619/2018 DATED 23/7/2018 IN OP(MV) NO. 1144/2013 BEFORE THE MACT, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **RESPONDENTS'EXTS: NIL**