IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6604 of 2007(J)
1. FLORENCIA ELIAS, HOUSE NO.22,
... Petitioner
2. GODWIN ELIAS, AGED 19 YEARS,
3. SALWIN ELIAS, AGED 14 YEARS,
4. MELWIN ELIAS, AGED 9 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, INDIAN
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE
For Petitioner :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/04/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6604 OF 2007
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner’s husband, while returning home from the
place of work, was knocked down on the road by a KSRTC bus
causing serious injuries leading to his death on 04.03.2006.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 3 and 4
have refused to disburse the GPF closure amount mentioned
under Ext.P5, insisting for production of guardianship
certificate and further against the non-disbursement of the
ex-gratia amount of Rs.50,000/- promised as payable to the
dependants of the victim by the second respondent/District
Collector, as appeared in Ext.P1 newspaper report.
2. When the above matter came up for admission before
this Court on 27.02.2007, instruction was sought for as to the
availability of the said sum of Rs.50,000/- payable as ex-gratia,
and as to the other reliefs prayed for. Subsequently, an interim
order was passed on 21.03.2007 observing that, if ‘heirship
certificate’ is produced following Ext.P5, ‘guardianship
certificate’ need not be insisted, on the petitioner’s executing
W.P.(C) No.6604 of 2007
2
an indemnity bond for the collection of funds on behalf of the
minor children as well. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the first prayer sought for in the writ petition
stands satisfied particularly in the light of the interim order
passed by this Court on 21.03.2007. With regard to the second
relief prayed for, the learned counsel submits that the
petitioner has been given only a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the
remaining extent of 40,000/- is still due.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed from the part of
the respondents and no instruction is available as to the extent
or availability of Rs.50,000/- stated as payable towards
ex-gratia as proclaimed by the second respondent/District
Collector vide Ext.P1 newspaper report. Even though this
Court is well aware that no reliance can be placed on such
newspaper reports and no decision can be arrived at on that
basis, it is reasonably presumed that the declaration as above
was made by the second respondent/District Collector taking
note of the availability by such amounts. More so, when no
counter affidavit has been filed by the said respondent, in spite
of the instructions sought for by this Court as observed in the
W.P.(C) No.6604 of 2007
3
proceedings dated 27.02.2007.
4. In the above facts and circumstances, the second
respondent is hereby directed to consider the claim of the
petitioners for obtaining the balance amount of Rs.40,000/-
payable as ex-gratia amount in respect of the death of the first
petitioner’s husband caused in the road accident on
04.03.2006 and the amount if any found payable, shall be
disbursed as early as possible and at any rate within three
months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The
petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before the
second respondent for proceeding with further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
pac