UNION OF INDIA Vs. K O OOMMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) .No.12468 of 2007 are the appellants. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, which was disposed of by the judgment under appeal directing the appellants herein to pay him an amount of 17, 79, 000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs seventy nine thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 09.04.2007. Liberty was also given to the appellants to recover the amount from the person who have fraudulently received the sum, by initiating appropriate proceedings as permitted under law. It is this judgment which is impugned before us.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the party respondent. It appears that the respondent's son Sunil Oommen was an employee in a private company in Dubai. He met with a motor accident and died. It appears that the Preliminary Court of Dubai in Criminal Petition No.279/1999 awarded compensation of 1, 50, 000/- Dirhams, which is equivalent to 17, 79, 000/- as on 1999, to the legal heirs of the deceased. On 29.10.1999 the respondent wrote to the appellants to initiate necessary action for obtaining the amount which was deposited in the Court. That was replied by the appellants by letter dated 16.11999 requesting for legal heirship certificate and also for a Power of Attorney. These documents were sent to them on 21.03.2000 and thereupon the appellants replied on 27.03.2000 requesting for translated and duly attested copies of certain documents. These documents were made available by the respondent by letter dated 07.08.2001. Appellants submitted the documents to the Court on 15.10.2001, when they were informed that on the basis of a Power of Attorney produced, the amount was released to one Mr.Jaswinder Singh Bangar on 26.02001. It is in this background the writ petition was filed, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge finding that there was negligence on the part of the appellants and it was because of their negligent attitude, the amount happened to be released to another person.

(3.) Although it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the finding of negligence on the part of the appellants is factually and legally erroneous, according to us, it is not possible to accept the contention. As already stated, the respondent has been dealing with the matter with the appellants as early as on 29.10.1999. When he was directed to make available the legal heirship certificate and also Power of Attorney, that documents were made available in March 2000 itself. Steps were not taken acting upon the Power of Attorney or legal heirship certificate and by letter dated 27.02000, the respondent was asked to produce the translated copies duly attested. Some time has been taken to make available the duly attested translated copies and it was in the meanwhile, the amount happened to be released to a stranger.