IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (MACT).No. 2572 of 2011(O) ----------------------------- OPMV.2338/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIIONER ------------------ ANIL VARGHESE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SRI. VARGHESE, MENACHERRY HOUSE, CHENGAL, KALADY. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ RESPONDENT: --------------- M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SANKERI-6. THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(MAC) No. 2572/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.2338/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 17.6.2010 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE I.A. NO.3721 OF 2010 IN OP(MV) NO.2238 OF 2004 DATED 10.11.2010 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE I.A. NO.3721 OF 2010 IN OP(MV) NO.2238 OF 2004 OF MACT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 5.1.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- O.P.(MAC) No. 2572 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the second claimant in OP(MV) No.2338 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. His father was the first claimant therein. The said claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the death of the petitioner’s mother in a motor accident. By Ext.P1 award passed on 17.6.2010, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor awarded the sum of Rs.2,59,174/- as compensation and directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation award together with interest. The petitioner and his father were also permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.75,000/- each. The insurer deposited the sum of Rs.2,59,193/- with the Tribunal. After appropriating the sum of Rs.5,623/- towards court fee and paying the petitioner and his father the sum of Rs.75,000/- each, the balance amount of Rs.1,03,570/- was deposited in the State Bank of Travancore, Perumbavoor branch. Shortly after the deposit was made, the petitioner filed I.A. No.3721 of 2010 for an order directing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to release the amount lying in deposit to him. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application he stated that he has taken a loan from the Angamaly branch of the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank, that he had decided to repay the amount as and when the OP(MAC)No.2572/2011 2 compensation awarded by the Tribunal is received, that he has paid the sum of Rs.2,45,827/- to the bank with interest and therefore the balance amount lying in deposit may be released to him. In that affidavit the petitioner had also stated that the statement issued from the bank is produced. By Ext.P3 order passed on 5.1.2011 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 and seeking an order directing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to allow I.A No.3721 of 2010 and to release the amount lying in deposit to the petitioner. 2. The order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on I.A. No.3721 of 2010 reads as follows: “Produced copy of award. As per award in O.P.2333/04 the father of petitioner has been given award for Rs.2,48,714/-. The award in respect of the petitioner in O.P.2338/04 is common award. The award in the name of father is sufficient to meet the medical expense of treatment. So the petition is rejected.” A reading of the order indicates that the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the amount awarded to the petitioner’s father and to the petitioner is sufficient to meet the expenses of treatment undergone by the father and therefore the request made by the petitioner is not genuine. On the other hand, the averment in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.3721 of 2010 is that the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Angamaly branch of the Ernakulam District Co- OP(MAC)No.2572/2011 3 operative bank, that he has repaid the sum of Rs.2,45,827/- towards the loan account and therefore the amount lying in deposit may be released to him. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it is stated that a statement from the bank is produced along with the application. In other words from a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the application it is evident that the petitioner had sought premature release of the amount lying in deposit for a purpose other than the purpose referred to by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 order also does not refer to the statement which the petitioner states was produced along with I.A. 3721 of 2010. I am therefore satisfied that Ext.P3 order cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the original petition, quash Ext.P3 and direct the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor to pass revised orders on I.A. No.3721 of 2010 having regard to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application, expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps