ANOOP BABY Vs. P.M. ABOOBACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in I.A. No. 1023 of 2012 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 979 of 2009. The petitioner had filed O.P.(M.V.) No. 979 of 2009 for award of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The O.P. was allowed and a total amount of '. 10,79,773/ - was awarded as per Ext.P1 award. An amount of '. 4,00,000/ - was paid to the petitioner for his treatment and other expenses and the balance amount was directed to be deposited in two fixed deposits in a nationalised bank in the name of the petitioner for a period of three years and five years respectively. The petitioner was further permitted to draw the interest periodically. While so, the petitioner moved I.A. No. 1023 of 2012 seeking permission to withdraw the entire amount remaining in fixed deposit, since he wanted to construct a house of his own. According to the petitioner, he O.P.(MAC) No. 1883/2012 had produced all necessary documents in support of his case. However, without considering any of the documents produced by him the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode has permitted withdrawal of the amount lying in only one fixed deposit. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P3 has been issued without considering the case of the petitioner or the documents produced by him in the proper perspective. Ext.P3 also does not disclose the reasons for disallowing his claim in part. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions for release of the entire amount that is lying in fixed deposit.

(2.) HAVING considered the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner I am satisfied that Ext.P3 order does not state any reasons for disallowing the claim of the petitioner for the release of the amounts lying in one of the fixed deposits. While allowing the petitioner to take the amount remaining in one fixed deposit, the request for release of the other fixed deposit has been rejected. No reasons for the rejection have been set forth. Therefore, Ext.P3 order to the extent questioned herein cannot be sustained. O.P.(MAC) No. 1883/2012 For the above reasons, Ext.P3 order to the extent it has disallowed the petitioner's claim to get the amount lying in one of the fixed deposits released, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode for fresh consideration. The Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal shall take up I.A. No. 1023 of 2012 afresh and shall pass fresh orders thereon after considering the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his case and disclosing the reasons for the acceptance of the objections thereof.