Vinod v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

**OP (MAC).No.40 OF 2021** **1** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 7TH VAISAKHA, 1943** **OP (MAC).No.40 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.01/2021 IN OPMV 909/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,NEYYATTINKARA** **PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION/APPLICANT IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM APPLICATION:** **VINOD AGED 27 YEARS S/O.SREEKANTAN, VARUKANDAM VEEDU, PAZHAYA UCHAKKADA, KARODE VILLAGE, KARODE P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 695 506.** **BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.RINU. S. ASWAN** ## **RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER IN THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM APPLICATION:** **THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REP.BY ITS MANAGER, HAVING OFFICE AT CWC BUILDING, L M S BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.** **R1 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU** **PUBLIC PROSECUTER SMT.SHYLAJA.S.L** **THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP (MAC).No.40 OF 2021** **2** ## **C.S DIAS,J.** **--------------------------O.P (MAC) No. 40 of 2021 ----------------------------Dated this the 27[th ] April, 2021.** ## **JUDGMENT** This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside Ext.P6 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, in the original petition is that, on account of the severe injuries that he sustained in an accident on 29.5.2014, the petitioner had filed O.P (MV)No.909/2014 before the above Tribunal, seeking compensation from the respondents. The Tribunal by Ext.P2 award dated 29.2.2020 allowed the claim petition by directing the respondent – Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 24,14,000/- as compensation with interest and costs. The Tribunal directed the respondent to credit **OP (MAC).No.40 OF 2021** **3** Rs.3,00,000/- to the bank account of the petitioner and the balance amount to be deposited in a fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner. 2.1. The petitioner belongs to the lower strata of the society and does not have a house of his own. In order to facilitate his future sustenance, he proposes to construct a residential-cum-commercial building. The petitioner has entered into Ext.P3 agreement of sale to purchase 15 cents of land. As the petitioner does not have any other independent source of income, he filed Ext.P1 application before the Tribunal to withdraw the amount lying in fixed deposit. However, the Tribunal by Ext.P6 order dismissed the application, inter alia, holding that the agreement produced before the Tribunal was an unregistered document. 2.2. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Padma A.V. and** **OP (MAC).No.40 OF 2021** **4** **Others v. R.Venugopal and Others** [2012 KHC 4068] to fortify his contention that the Tribunal ought not to have mechanically directed the compensation to be deposited in fixed deposit. Hence, Ext.P6 order may be set aside and the Tribunal may be directed to release the balance amount lying in deposit. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The Tribunal by Ext.P2 award had allowed the claim petition by permitting the petitioner to realise an amount of Rs.24,14,000/- with interest and costs from the respondent. The Tribunal directed the respondent to release an amount of Rs.3,00,000/to the petitioner and the balance amount to be put in fixed deposit. Ergo, the Tribunal did not fix the tenure of the fixed deposit. Subsequently, the Tribunal by Ext.P6 order dismissed Ext.P1 application filed by the petitioner for the reason that ## **OP (MAC).No.40 OF 2021** **5** the agreement was not registered and the sole intention of the petitioner was to withdraw the balance compensation amount. 5. The legal position, with regard to the disbursal of compensation, is no longer res integra in view of the declaration of law in **Padma A.V & Others** (supra). 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that long term fixed deposit of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of semiilliterate claimants, the Tribunal should, if satisfied, permit the whole or part of the amount to be withdrawn for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. It is further observed that the Tribunals very ## **OP (MAC).No.40 OF 2021** ## **6** often dispose of application for withdrawal of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind, which results in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. 7. Undisputedly, the petitioner is aged 27 years and he is a mason by profession. The petitioner is a literate person. 8. The specific case of the petitioner in Ext.P1 application is that he needs the balance compensation amount to purchase a property and to construct a residential-cum-commercial building, which will give him a shelter and income for his future sustenance. Nevertheless, the Tribunal by the impugned order, finding that the agreement was an unregistered one, held that the agreement was not genuine and accordingly dismissed the application. 9. In light of the law laid down in **Padma A.V & Others** (supra) and finding that the petitioner is a literate person, I am of the considered opinion that **OP (MAC).No.40 OF 2021** **7** Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and hyper-technical. 10. It is to be borne-in-mind that the Tribunal awarded compensation to the petitioner on account of the serious injuries that he sustained in the accident and on finding that the petitioner is suffering from 70% permanent disability. Therefore, the petitioner is now disabled from carrying on with his avocation. The compensation is the only succor for the petitioner's sustenance. The reasons stated in the application is bona fide and genuine, and leaves no room for any suspicion. After all the compensation awarded to the petitioner is for his benefit. There is no necessity to perceive that the petitioner would squander his blood money. Likewise, the Tribunal has not fixed the tenure of the fixed deposit. As more than a year has lapsed since the passing of Ext.P2 award, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner has made out a case warranting the release of the balance **OP (MAC).No.40 OF 2021** **8** compensation amount for his own sustenance. In the result, the original petition is allowed as follows: (i) Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. (ii) The Tribunal is directed to forthwith release the balance compensation amount with accrued interest to the petitioner which is lying in deposit in O.P (MV) 909/2014. ma/27.04.2021 **Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** **/** True copy/ **OP (MAC).No.40 OF 2021** **9** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2021 IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.909 OF 2014 DATED 24.2.2021 ON THE FILES OF THE LD. M.A.C.T., NEYYATTINKARA.** **EXHIBIT P2** **A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.990 OF 2009 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE M.A.C.T. DATED 29.2.2020** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF CONSENT AGREEMENT BY REMYA BRIGIT DATED 20.2.2021** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1249/09 IN THE NAME OF REMYA BRIGIT DATED 18.2.2009** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM KARODE VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 21.10.2019** **EXHIBIT P6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.909 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF THE LD.M.A.C.T., NEYYATTINKARA DATED 17.3.2021** **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN PADMA A.V. AND ORS. V. VENUGOPAL AND ORS.**