Jayalakshmi v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **OP (MAC).No.65 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.5733/2018 IN O.P.(MV)NO.533/2015 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA** ## **PETITIONER:** **JAYALAKSHMI, AGED 54 YEARS,W/O. SUBRAMANIAN, KANNAMPUTHOOR HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA, VARAKKARA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BANGLORE CITY D.O XII(672300), 1ST FLOOR, MAYUR COMPLEX, KIADB MAIN ROAD, PEENYA, KARNATAKA-560 058.** **SRI A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, STANDING COUNSEL, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.** **THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP (MAC).No.65 of 2019** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner's son Sujith died in a motor accident, which occurred on 25.01.2015, while he was riding a motor cycle. Claiming a total compensation of Rs.70,65,000/under different heads, O.P.(MV) No.533 of 2015 was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal passed Ext.P1 award dated 07.03.2018, awarding a total compensation of Rs.68,66,960/- together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum with proportionate cost from the respondents therein and the 3[rd] respondent insurer, who is arrayed as the sole respondent in this original petition, was directed to deposit the award amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that award. As per Ext.P1 award, the amount has to be apportioned in the ratio 35:40:25 between the 1[st] claimant, who is the father of the deceased, the 2[nd] claimant (the petitioner herein), who is the mother of the deceased and the 3[rd] claimant, who is a mentally retarded sibling of the deceased. Out of the said amount, the parents of the deceased were permitted to **OP (MAC).No.65 of 2019** -3- withdraw a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and the rest of the amount was ordered to be deposited in the name of the respective claimants for a period of three years in a nationalised bank and they are permitted to realise the interest of the respective sum deposited. 2. The petitioner, who is the 2[nd] claimant in O.P.(MV) No.533 of 2015, moved Ext.P3 application, i.e., I.A.No.5733 of 2018 for premature release of the amount, which is now kept in fixed deposit. In the affidavit accompanying to that interlocutory application, it is stated that, in terms of Ext.P1 award, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.14,53,510/-, out of which a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been disbursed. The remaining amount is kept in fixed deposit. In the said affidavit, the petitioner has pointed out her liabilities, including that in respect of the loan availed from Amballoor Service Co-operative Bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P2 account statement, in respect of the said loan transaction. The Tribunal by Ext.P4 order dismissed Ext.P3 application. Ext.P4 order dated 31.10.2018, reads thus; **OP (MAC).No.65 of 2019** -4- "Award was passed on 7.3.2018 and subsequent to that, petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.3,00,000/-. She was also permitted to withdraw monthly interest. The balance amount was deposited as Fixed Receipt on 8.8.18. Now after two and a half months, the petitioner have moved this application for premature release of Fixed Deposit Receipt. No reason is stated in the affidavit for the premature relief other than the vague allegation that she is indebted to many. But no steps is seen taken to withdraw the monthly interest from the deposit as ordered by this Court. Hence her request cannot be granted. IA dismissed." 3. The said order is under challenge in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of this Court in **Jyni v. Raphel P.T. [2016 (2) KHC 870]** . In the said decision, 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 **OP (MAC).No.65 of 2019** -5- 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 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 **OP (MAC).No.65 of 2019** -6- 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. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer would point out that the petitioner has not produced Ext.P2 or any other relevant materials before the Tribunal in support of the averments in the affidavit accompanying to Ext.P3 interlocutory application. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner shall produce necessary materials before the Tribunal, along with an additional affidavit. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this original petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P4 order, so as to enable the Tribunal to reconsider Ext.P3 application and pass appropriate orders, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in **Jyni's case (** _**Supra**_ **)** , with notice to the petitioner **OP (MAC).No.65 of 2019** -7- and also to the respondent insurer, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce additional materials before the Tribunal along with an application, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr **OP (MAC).No.65 of 2019** -8- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO. 533/2015 OF MACT, IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION, I.A. NO. 5733/2018 IN O.P.(MV) 533/2015 OF MACT, IRINJALAKUDA. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 IN I.A NO. 5733/2018 IN O.P.(MV) NO. 533/2015 OF MACT, IRINJALAKUDA.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL**