UNNIKRISHNAN T Vs. JITHENDRA KUMAR K C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri.Sreejith, the son of the petitioners herein, was a constable in the Border Security Force. He lost his life on 16.11.2010 when the car in which he was traveling was mowed down by a KSRTC bus. He left behind his wife and the petitioners herein.

(2.) O.P.(Mv) No.161 of 2012 was filed by the legal heirs claiming compensation. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte and Exhibit P1 award was passed on 26.7.2013, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.24,89,064/- by way of compensation together with interest. Later, at the instance of the respondents, the ex parte award was set aside on condition that the 2nd respondent deposits a sum of Rs.12 Lakhs. The matter was proceeded with and Exhibit P2 award was passed on 29.8.2017, awarding the very same amount awarded earlier together with interest. Out of the sum of Rs.12 Lakhs which was deposited, the wife was held entitled to 50 %, the 2nd petitioner herein, who is the mother, was held entitled to 30% and the 1st petitioner herein, the father of the deceased was held entitled to 20%. The wife was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1 lakh and the petitioners herein were permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- each. The balance amount was ordered to be deposited in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit for a period of five years. The bank was directed to pay monthly interest to the petitioners.

(3.) According to the petitioners, when Exhibit P1 award was set aside on the application filed by the 2nd respondent, a sum of Rs.12 Lakhs was ordered to be remitted. The said amount was deposited in a Nationalised Bank on 26.07.2013 for a period of five years, which period elapsed in the year 2018. Exhibit P2 award was later passed on 29.8.2017, and the Tribunal, without taking note of the earlier deposit, nevertheless directed the respondents to deposit the amount for a further period of five years. It is contended that the petitioners are senior citizens, the 1st petitioner being 70 years of age, and the 2nd petitioner having crossed 60 years. They are sick and ailing and require funds urgently. In the said circumstances, they approached the Tribunal and filed Exhibit P3 and P4 applications with a prayer to release that portion of the amount, to which they are entitled to, in its entirety. However, the Tribunal by the impugned orders directed to credit only 30% of the amount to which they are entitled to together with interest by Electronic Funds Transfer. It is contended that the 1st petitioner in the Original Petition, who is the wife of late Sreejith, has executed a power of attorney in favor of the 1st petitioner herein permitting him to withdraw the amounts covered under Exhibit P2.