High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-12-17Original petition disposed of; Ext.P15 order se...

P. E. Ramla and others v. Kuriachan P.M. and others

Case / Petition Number:OP (MAC).No. 181 of 2014 (O)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2014-12-17
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P15 order set aside; the MACT is directed to release the amounts in the Fixed Deposit, in the name of petitioners 2 to 4, within one month from production of a certified copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of.
Final Disposition: Original petition disposed of; Ext.P15 order set aside; MACT to release deposited funds within one month of certified copy of judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mrs. P.E. Ramla, W/o Late N.P. Nishad
N.M. Mohammed Shafi, Aged 10 years (Minor, represented by mother)
N.M. Mohammed Shaffier, Aged 9 years (Minor, represented by mother)
N.M. Mohammed Shaffin, Aged 6 years (Minor, represented by mother)
N.V. Pareeth Pillai, Aged 70 years

Respondents

Kuriachan P.M., S/O.Mathai, Panackal House, Pottachalippadam Road, Changapuzha Nagar, Kalamassery, Ernakulam - Registered Owner
Martin Mathew, S/O.Mathew, Pappadiyil House, Mannamkandam Village, Idukki District (Driver)
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office IV, Tripunithura, Cochin (Insurer)
The Village Officer, Marambilly (Impleaded)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Jojo George
• Sri P. Muraleedharan (Thuravoor)
• Smt. T.A. Luxy

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. K.S. Santhi
• GOVT PLEADER Sri Biju Meenattoor

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, legal heirs of late N.P. Nishad, challenge an award under OP(MV) No.1291/2008 and the MACT’s subsequent order directing that the compensation amount be deposited and held in fixed deposits for the minors. The MACT had awarded Rs 9,21,600 with 9% interest; portions of the award were already deposited for minors (petitioners 2–4) and interim sums similarly deposited. The petition seeks release of the entire deposited amount to enable construction of a residential building on property partitioned in the name of petitioners 1–4, as supported by partition deed, possession certificates, and a building plan. The Village Officer’s report confirms substantial construction on land standing in the name of the petitioners. The Tribunal had doubted the exact contractual nexus with the contractor due to gaps in the agreement. The petition relies on two Supreme Court decisions: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and AV Padma v. R. Venugopal, to argue against mechanically ordering long-term deposits and to emphasize the need to consider the claimants’ age, literacy, and social background. The High Court ultimately sets aside the Ext. P15 order and directs the MACT to release the deposited funds, within one month of certified copy of this judgment, balancing the family’s immediate needs with protection of minors.”

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Not to mechanically order deposit of compensation in fixed deposits as a matter of course; reasons must be recorded and due regard given to the claimant’s age, literacy and social background to ensure that awards are not frittered away.
Deposit considerations may be appropriate for minors or illiterates where their larger interest requires regulatory safeguards.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the entire amount deposited in fixed deposits, including the minors’ share, should be released to petitioners 1–4 to enable construction of a residential building on property partitioned in their name. They rely on partition deeds, possession certificates, building plans, and a village officer’s report confirming ongoing construction on land registered in petitioners’ names. They challenge the MACT’s conclusion that the contractor agreement did not clearly relate to the construction and emphasize that the family’s immediate needs and the minors’ future safety justify unlocking the funds, especially in light of AV Padma and Susamma Thomas precedents limiting mechanical fixed deposits and requiring consideration of the claimants’ social and personal context.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ position, as reflected by the advocates, is that the compensation fund should be safeguarded and not prematurely de‑pooled. They rely on the Tribunal’s earlier deposit order to ensure the minors’ welfare while balancing the family’s needs. They argue that the absence of a clear, direct contractual arrangement with the contractor and the need to protect the minors’ interests justify continuing regulatory safeguards through fixed deposits, and that any release should be carefully examined by the MACT with regard to the minors’ welfare and financial security.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas	(1994) 2 SCC 176	Partly Overruled / Limited	Cited as the earlier basis for depositing funds; later AV Padma clarified that tribunals should not mechanically order such deposits, limiting the rigidity of Susamma Thomas.
A.V. Padma and v. R. Venugopal	(2012) 3 SCC 378	Positive	Clarifies that tribunals should not mechanically require long-term fixed deposits and must consider the claimant’s age, literacy, social background; guidance adopted by the court in this case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. E. Ramla and others v. Kuriachan P.M. and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936** ## **OP (MAC).No. 181 of 2014 (O)** **----------------------------------------** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1291/2008 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM DATED PETITIONER(S):** **----------------------** **1. MRS.P.E.RAMLA, W/O.LATE N.P.NISHAD, NADACKAL HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2. N.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 10 YEARS, (MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SMT.P.E.RAMLA), S/O.LATE N.P.NISHAD, NADACKAL HOUSE, MUDICKAL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **3. N.M.MOHAMMED SHAFFIER, AGED 9 YEARS, (MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SMT.P.E.RAMLA), S/O.LATE N.P.NISHAD, NADACKAL HOUSE, MUDICKAL PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **4. N.M.MOHAMMED SHAFFIN, AGED 6 YEARS, (MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SMT.P.E.RAMLA), S/O.LATE N.P.NISHAD, NADACKAL HOUSE, MUDICKALPERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **5. N.V.PAREETH PILLA, AGED 70 YEARS, NADAKKAL HOUSE, MUDICKAL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.JOJO GEORGE SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) SMT.T.A.LUXY** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-------------------------** **1. KURIACHAN P.M., S/O.MATHAI, PANACKAL HOUSE, POTTACHALIPPADAM ROAD, CHANGAPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 104 (REGISTERED OWNER).** **Msv/** **-2-** **-2-** ## **OP (MAC).No. 181 of 2014 (O)** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **2. MARTIN MATHEW,** - **S/O.MATHEW, PAPPADIYIL HOUSE, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, KOOMBANPARA DESOM, NEAR RC CHURCH ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 561 (DRIVER).** **3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE IV, 'PALAKKAT BUILDING', MARKET JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA, COCHIN - 682 301, PIN - 682 301 (INSURER).** - **ADDITIONAL R4 IMPLEADED.** ## **4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,** - **MARAMBILLY.** - **ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED IN THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DTD.25.11.2014.** ## **BY ADV.SMT.K.S.SANTHI** ## **R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR** ## **THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **17-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **OP (MAC).No. 181 of 2014 (O) -----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** - **EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 27.8.2011 IN OP(MV) NO.1291/2008 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.4.2010 IN IA.NO.1460/10 IN OP(MV) NO.1291/2008 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.4.2009 IN OP(G&W) NO.1734/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2801/12 OF SRO PERUMBAVOOR.** - **EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.3834652 DATED 13.9.13 ISSUED BY MARAMBILLY VILLAGE OFFICE.** - **EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2104/2012 IN OP(MV) NO.1291/2008 DATED 1.3.2012.** - **EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.4.2012 IN I.A.NO.2104/2012 IN OP(MV) NO.1291/2008 OF THE HON'BLE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN SANCTIONED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4.** - **EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.8304/13 IN I.A.NO.2104/12 IN OP(MV) NO. 1291/2008 DATED 13.11.13.** - **EXT.P-10: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO IN I.A.NO.8304/13 IN I.A.NO.2104/12 IN OP(MV) NO.1291/2008 DATED 20.11.13.** - **EXT.P-11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2013 IN I.A.NO.8304/13 IN OP(MV) NO.1291/2008 OF THE HON'BLE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXT.P-12: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. 9606/13 IN I.A.NO.8304/13 IN I.A.NO.2104/12 IN O.P(MV) NO.1291/2008 DATED 16.12.13.** - **EXT.P-13: TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION OP(MAC) NO.90/2014 FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT WITHOUT EXHIBITS.** - **EXT.P-14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2014 IN WPC NO.90/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXT.P-15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.9606/13.** **EXT.P-16: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.2.2010.** **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** **OP (MAC).No. 181 of 2014 (O) ----------------------------------------RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: -----------------------------------------** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** Ms **v/** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P(MAC)No. 181 of 2014** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **Dated this the 17[th] day of December, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners are legal heirs of one N.P. Nishad, who suffered a fatal accident, the compensation for which was claimed in O.P(MV) No.1291/2008. An award was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam wherein an amount of Rs.9,21,600/was granted with 9% interest. Out of the same, an amount of Rs.6,92,856/- was deposited in the name of respondents 2 to 4 being the minor children of the deceased. An amount of Rs.10,748/- each was also deposited in the name of the minors, being their share of the interim award passed. As of now, a total amount of Rs.7,25,130/- is remaining in deposit in the name of the minors. The original petition has been filed challenging the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam at Ext.P15. OPMAC181/2014 : 2 : 2. The wife and children of the deceased having no roof over their head, decided to construct a residential building in the property which she received on partition of the property of the deceased husband's mother. The property was partitioned and settled in the name of the petitioners 1 to 4. The other legal heir of the deceased person, being his father, has also joined the above writ petition as a petitioner. 3. Petitioners 2 to 4 represented by their mother, filed an application before the MACT, Ernakulam for release of the amounts kept in deposit so as to complete the construction of the building. An agreement was also produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that there is nothing to show that the agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the contractor, since the agreement produced itself was between the contractor and the sub contractor. It was also found that the survey number and other details with regard to the property were not disclosed in the OPMAC181/2014 : 3 : agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in fact, the survey number and the description of the property were available before the Tribunal, since the partition deed, possession certificate etc. were produced before the Tribunal. Merely for the reason that the agreement did not disclose the exact location in which the construction is carried out, the Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 4. The release of a portion of the amount as also the direction to deposit the balance amount in Fixed Deposit follows a decision reported in **Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (1994 (2) SCC 176)** . However, later the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position in **A.V Padma and v. R.Venugopal ( 2012 (3) SCC 378)** wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Tribunals should not mechanically order deposit of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposits as a matter of course without recording the reasons for OPMAC181/2014 : 4 : making such orders. Due regard should be had to the age, fiscal and social background, literacy status etc, of the claimant when making such orders; to ensure that the amounts awarded are not frittered away. Deposit of amounts could be ordered in the case of minors, illiterates and others whose social status requires such a regulatory order and the larger interest of the claimant should be the guiding factor. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had deprecated the rigid stand of various Tribunals while considering and disposing of the applications seeking release of money. 5. This Court in the circumstance of minors being involved, directed the Government Pleader to get a report from the Village Officer, Marambilly after inspection of the property and on the specific claim made by the petitioners herein. 6. The learned Government Pleader has, by memo dated 11.12.2014 produced the report of the Village Officer, Marambilly, bearing No.276/2014 dated OPMAC181/2014 : 5 : 28.11.2014. The Village Officer has inspected the site and found that the construction of a residential building, having an extent of about 1500 sq.ft, is proceeding in the property. It is also stated that on verification of the records, the property in which the residential construction is carried on, is, in a property having an extent of 1.62 Ares in Re-sy. No.36/7-2-6 in Block No.23, standing in the name of the petitioners 1 to 4. 7. In the circumstance of the property itself standing in the name of the minors, and the construction carried on with the intention of residence of the wife and children of the deceased person, necessarily this Court is of the opinion that the entire amount deposited shall be released to the petitioners 1 to 4. This Court is convinced that this would only further the interest of the bereaved family. The interest of the minors would be sufficiently protected since the amounts so disbursed are intended to be applied for the construction of a residential building, in a property which stands in the name of their mother OPMAC181/2014 : 6 : and themselves. Ext.P15 order shall stand set aside. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal shall release the amounts in the Fixed Deposit, in the name of the petitioners 2 to 4, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of. Sd/- **(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)** jma //true copy// P.A to Judge