Shamera vs The Branch Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 15034 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
        FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        OP (MAC) NO. 65 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 135/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
                  CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:

    1       SHAMERA
            AGED 31 YEARS
            W/O.LATE THASLIM, KAITHAPOLA PURAYIDOM, P.H.WARD,
            ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

    2       FAHADBIN THASLIM
            AGED 4 YEARS
            S/O.LATE THASLIM, KAITHAPOLA PURAIDOM, P.H.WARD,
            ALAPPUZHA - 688 001 (MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, 1ST
            PETITIONER).

    3       FIDA THASLIM
            AGED 4 YEARS
            S/O.LATE THASLIM, KAITHAPOLA PURAYIDOM, P.H.WARD,
            ALAPPUZHA - 688 001 (MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, 1ST
            PETITIONER).

            BY ADV K.J.RENJITH



RESPONDENT/S:

    1       THE BRANCH MANAGER
            UCO BANK, MULLAKKAL, ALLEPPEY - 688 011.

    2       THE BRANCH MANAGER
            STATE BANK OF INDIA, CIVIL STATION BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA -
            688001.

    3       ACHAMMA JOHN
            W/O.BABY JOHN, VILAYIL HOUSE, ATHIKATTU KUNGARA,
            NOORANADU P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 504.

    4       K.V.RAJESH
            S/O.VIJAYAN, VADAKKE VELIYIL VEETTIL, ASRAMAM WARD,
            AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 006.
 O.P.(MAC) No.65/2021                         2

     5          THE BRANCH MANAGER
                ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,
                AMRITA TOWERS, OPP. MAHARAJAS GROUND, KOCHI -
                688 001.

                BY ADV H.RAMANAN-R5




         THIS    OP   (MAC)   HAVING    COME     UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
16.07.2021,        THE   COURT   ON    THE   SAME     DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(MAC) No.65/2021                           3

                                    JUDGMENT

Petitioners are the claimants in O.P.(MV) No.135/2013 of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. An award was passed for a sum of

Rs.22,30,693/- with interest. Award amount was deposited in the name of wife

and children of deceased in equal proportion in the bank. First petitioner filed

I.A.No.75/2021 requesting to release the amount under deposit for the purpose

of purchasing a property covered by Ext.P1. The extent of land proposed to be

purchased is 3 cents and the consideration is Rs.4,75,000/- per cent. The first

petitioner sought release of the above amount from the court, standing in the

name of the petitioners. It was also asserted that the property will be purchased

in the name of the petitioners together, so that it will be more beneficial. It was

also stated that a house was essential for the young widow and her two minor

children. It was further stated that, she proposes to avail the benefit given by the

Municipality for construction of house for the homeless. The court below

allowed the application in part, permitting the withdrawal of the share of the first

petitioner alone. That part of the order, by which the claim for release of the

shares of the petitioners 2 and 3, was declined is under challenge in this

proceedings.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing

Counsel for the Insurance Company.

3. It seems that the court below purported to decide in the best interest of

the minors. However, the court shall not be oblivious about the other effective

methods of utilisation of the money. Purchase of land for minors is one method.

It is the interest of every person to have an independent house of their own. First

petitioner has clarified the reason and produced copy of the agreement for sale.

Necessarily, the court should have considered the above aspect in that angle.

Definitely, if the court entertained any apprehension regarding the genuineness

of the agreement , it could have ordered production of original agreement. The

court could also have imposed further condition directing that the cheque will

be issued directly to the purchaser. The court below could have directed that the

original agreement should be produced in the court and also that the property

should be purchased in equal shares thereby petitioners 2 and 3 will have also

equal rights. It seems that these feasibilities have not been considered by the

court below. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P3 order

and direct the Tribunal to consider Ext.P3 in the above perspective and to pass

fresh orders in the light of what is stated above.

The writ petition is allowed as above. The court below shall pass

appropriate orders on the interlocutory application at the earliest. at any rate

within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

dpk

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 65/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVANCE AGREEMENT DATED 23/12/2020 ENTERED IN TO BY THE PETITIONERS.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.75/2021 IN O.P.

(MV) NO.135/2013 DATED 11/01/2021.

Exhibit P3             TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN
                       I.A.NO.75/2021 IN O.P.(MV) 135/2013
                       DATED 23/02/2021.