SARAMMA Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Siby Mathew for the appellant. Appellant is the petitioner in the original petition. Original petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited in her name in O.P. (MV) No. 312 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha and to release the fixed deposit receipt in her name. It is seen from Exh. PI award that a sum of Rs. 2,77,000 was awarded and that the appellant, the widow of the deceased was found entitled to get Rs. 1,17,000 with interest and cost. However, the appellant was allowed to withdraw only Rs. 30,000 and the balance amount less court fee was directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank. It is stated by the appellant that her husband was the sole breadwinner of the family and after his death the appellant and her minor children have been residing in a hut and the hut at present is almost in a dilapidated condition, the hut may collapse at any time. The appellant had approached the Tribunal for permission to withdraw the balance amount of Rs. 1,20,080 for the purpose of reconstructing the building at an approximate cost of Rs. 1,50,000. The Tribunal rejected the same by Exh. P3 order. The main reason stated in Exh. P3 is that even though the estimate and plan of the proposed construction were produced, the survey number and other details of the property in which the proposed construction was intended were not specified. However, the appellant has filed Exh. P4 sale deed in respect of the property only along with the original petition in this court. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by Exh. P3 order rejected the application filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not specified anything of the property in which the construction is intended. It is seen from the order that the appellant has not produced the title deeds and other details as to whether any construction work has commenced. The learned Tribunal in the concluding portion of its order held that the release of the fixed deposit amounts is permitted either to acquire assets and to earn a livelihood or in cases of emergency and since none of the contingencies occur in this case the compensation amount awarded cannot be released to the appellant who is the widow of the deceased, who was a headload worker.

(2.) We are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that the appellant is not entitled to release of the fixed deposit amount for the reasons stated in the concluding portion of its order is not correct.

(3.) As already stated the appellant filed the original petition for a mandamus directing the Tribunal to permit her to withdraw the amount deposited in her name and to release the fixed deposit. Along with the original petition the appellant filed Exh. PI, photocopy of the award, Exh. P2, petition filed by her before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Exh. P3, order dated 12.7.99 dismissing I.A. No. 739 of 1999, Exh. P4, photocopy of the sale deed No. 228 of 1995 dated 22.8.1995 and Exh. P5, photocopy of the receipt evidencing payment of land tax for the year 1997-98. It has been specifically stated in the original petition that during the lifetime of her husband, the appellant's husband had purchased an extent of 10 cents of land in their joint names as per Sale Deed No. 228 of 1995 and in evidence thereof the appellant filed the sale deed which has been marked as Exh. P4. It is further stated that ever since the date of purchase the appellant has been paying the land tax and evidencing such payment for the year 1997-98 Exh. P5 has been produced and marked. Thus, according to the appellant, the appellant is the absolute owner of the 10 cents of land and, therefore, the main ground relied on by the learned Tribunal is without any basis. It is also urged that after the death of the husband the appellant is the only earning member of the family, has to look after three minor children and that they are staying in a hut which is in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, it is necessary that the appellant be allowed to withdraw the balance amount of Rs. 1,20,080 deposited in her name in the Canara Bank, Adivadu Branch as per the directions in Exh. PI award. It is also stated that appellant is a casual labourer and has no other source of income and that she will not be able to raise funds for putting up a building with her meagre income.