IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 31611 of 2008(L) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA.3890/2008 IN OPMV.1570/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNILKUMAR, MANAPPADU HOUSE PUZHAVATH, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CHANGANACHERRY BRANCH, CHANGANACHERRY. *ADDL.R2. T.G.UTHUPPAN, S/O.ABRAHAM, THEKKEPARAMBIL, KURICHY, KOTTAYAM. (*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/11/2008 IN I.A.NO.13863/2008) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31611/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 11/08/2008. P2 : COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 24/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE OFFICE. P3 : COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 27/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE SRO, PUTHUPPALLY. P4 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 25/07/2008 ISSUED BY the VILLAGE OFFICER, CHANGANACHERRY. P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/09/2008 IN I.A.NO.3890/2008 IN OP (MV) NO.1570/2000 OF THE MACT, KOTTAYAM. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.31611 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks a direction to the MACT, Kottayam to permit withdrawl of Rs.3 lakhs from out of the amount in deposit pursuant to the award passed in OP(MV) No.1570/2000. On 30/04/2005, compensation of Rs.4,02,000/- was awarded to the petitioner and out of which, he was permitted to withdraw only Rs.50,000/- and the balance was ordered to be kept in deposit. 2. It is stated that for treatment and other expenses, the petitioner has already incurred a heavy debt and in addition to that he has also entered into an agreement to purchase a plot of land as per Ext.P1 agreement for sale. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P4, a certificate from the Village Officer to the effect that the petitioner does not own any immovable property within his area. On this basis, the petitioner sought release of the full amount in deposit. 3. However, by Ext.P5, the Tribunal permitted release of Rs.1,00,000/-only . It is on account of this, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that the Tribunal be directed to release the entire amount in deposit. WP(C) No.31611/2008 -2- 4. Admittedly, substantial portion of the amount awarded to the petitioner as compensation was ordered to be kept in deposit. The reasons stated by the petitioner for premature release of the deposit are treatment expenses, to discharge the debts and also for purchase of an immovable property. The Tribunal has not found any reason in Ext.P5, against the request made by the petitioner, to justify the restricted release that it has ordered. 5. In my view, when the victim of the accident seeks release of the amount in deposit for meeting the treatment expenses or for discharging his debt and for purchasing a property, those are prima facie, sufficient reasons to justify the request. Therefore, I am not in a position to endorse the view taken by the Tribunal in Ext.P5 limiting the release to Rs.1,00,000/-, especially in the absence of any adverse findings. 6. Therefore, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing the Tribunal to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount in deposit. 7. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg