IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19676 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- OPMV.748/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VELU, S/O.APPAVOO, RESIDING AT MURIYANKARA, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, PARASSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN, SMT.LIGEY ANTONY. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., (MADURAI DIVISION 3) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19676 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in I.A.No.1716/2010 in O.P.(MV) No.748 of 2001. The petitioner was one of the claimants in O.P.(MV) No.748 of 2001. The petition was filed claiming compensation for the death of his wife in a motor accident. An award was passed on 31.10.2005 granting an amount of Rs.3,63,500/- as compensation with 9% interest. The compensation has to be shared by the petitioner as well as his two minor children. 2. Pursuant to the award Ext.P1, the award amount was deposited by the respondent out of which, an amount of Rs.3,42,833/- has been deposited in the names of the minor children, in fixed deposit. The children are aged 11 years and 9 years respectively. According to the petitioner, money is required for the purchase of an item of immovable property which contains yielding rubber wpc No.19676/2010 2 trees. The property is going to be purchased in the names of the minors, pursuant to Ext.P2 agreement for sale. For purchasing the property, the petitioner sought permission of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as directions for releasing the amount that is remaining in fixed deposit. For the purpose, I.A.No.1716/2010 was filed. However, as per Ext.P4 order, without assigning any reasons, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rejected the request of the petitioner and his minor children. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order on the ground that it is not supported by reasons and that the same has been issued without considering any of the contentions of the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader also. 4. Ext.P4 shows that it is a one line order passed without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P4 cannot be sustained. The matters to be considered while allowing or rejecting a prayer similar to one made in the present case has been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision wpc No.19676/2010 3 reported in Saramma v MACT (1999 (3) KLT 624). Therefore, the request of the petitioner would have to be considered in the light of the principles laid down in the said decision. Since the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara has not considered the request of the petitioner in the proper perspective, Ext.P4 is unsustainable. 5. For the above reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed, Ext.P4 is set aside. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara is directed to take up I.A.No.1716/2010 in O.P.(MV) No.748/2001, to consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass fresh orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/