SHARMILA Vs. FAIZAL AD ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by Ext.P6 order, by which the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Ottappalam had restricted the release of the award amount to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ -, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(2.) THE petitioner met with a motor vehicle accident on 04.09.2011, in which she lost her husband and her only daughter. She also sustained severe injuries. She filed four claim petitions before the MACT, Ottappalam, viz., OP (MAV) Nos. 293/2012, 297/2012, 357/2012 & 393/2012 regarding the death of her daughter, bodily injuries sustained by the petitioner, the death her husband and the property damaged respectively. In OP(MAV) No. 357/2012, the 4th respondent was impleaded. By Ext.P1 common award, the Tribunal granted Rs.25,12,265/ - with interest. Initially, the Tribunal released Rs.4,97,765/ -, which, according to the petitioner, was utilized for discharging liabilities occurred for meeting the medical expenses and treatment and also for conducting the cases. Thereafter IA Nos. 1289/2015 in OP(MV) No. 293/2012 and IA No. 1289/2015 in OP(MV) No. 297/2015 were filed to release Rs.2,23,739/ - and Rs.5,32,043/ - respectively for purchasing 9.75 cents of land in terms of Ext.P2 agreement, which were allowed by order dated 21.04.2015 and the property was purchased as per Ext.P3 sale deed. The petitioner alleges that she intends to construct a residential building in the property purchased as she has no residential building and is residing along with her mother. Accordingly, she filed another application before the Tribunal to release Rs.14,32,993/ - lying in the fixed deposit prematurely as IA No. 1290/2015 in OP (MV) No. 357/2012, producing necessary documents. However, the Tribunal, by Ext.P6 order dated 30.04.2015, only released Rs.5,00,000/ - stating that out of Rs.25,12,565/ -, Rs.12,53,547/ - is already released, which, according to the petitioner, was ordered without considering the expenses incurred towards treatment, continuing treatment, for conducting the cases and also the actual expenses incurred in purchasing the property. The petitioner alleges that now, as per the plan and estimate, the she requires a minimum amount of Rs.15,75,000/ - for the construction of the residential building and no objection was raised by any of the respondents in releasing the amount. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 order, restricting to release Rs.5,00,000/ - is illegal. Hence, this original petition.

(3.) CONSIDERING the nature of the submission and the nature of relief sought for, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of without issuing any further notice to the respondents.