High Court Kerala High Court

Mary Mathew vs Santhosh on 6 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Mary Mathew vs Santhosh on 6 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30501 of 2009(G)


1. MARY MATHEW, PANTHIRUPARAYI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BINOSH MATHEW, PANTHIRUPARAYIL,
3. JESSY MATHEW,

                        Vs



1. SANTHOSH, S/O. THANKAPPAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.K. ANWAR, S/O. KHADER,

3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALEX GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :06/11/2009

 O R D E R
                           S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

                ``````````````````````````````````````````````````
                  W.P.(C) No. 30501 of 2009 G
                ``````````````````````````````````````````````````
              Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are claimants in OP(MV) No.1301/2004

in which amounts have been awarded as compensation for the

death of P.M.Mathew, the husband of the first petitioner and father

of the others. Out of the amounts awarded, certain amounts are

lying in fixed deposit in the name of each of the petitioners. They

filed petitions before the Tribunal for release of the fixed deposits

on the ground that the amounts are needed for paying off the loan

taken from the husband of the third petitioner, who is now

constructing a house for which funds are needed. Those petitions

have been dismissed by the Tribunal by Ext.P2 series orders on

the ground that the reason was created and not bona fide. The

petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging those orders.

2. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I am not

inclined to direct the Tribunal to release the fixed deposit in

respect of the first petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased.

However, in view of the fact that the husband of the third petitioner

WPC.30501/09
: 2 :

himself needs money for construction of a house and the second

petitioner is the son, I think that there cannot be any harm in

disbursing the amounts deposited in the names of petitioners 2

and 3. Accordingly, the rejection of the application in respect of

the fixed deposit in the name of the first petitioner would stand

confirmed. However, the Tribunal shall take steps to release the

amounts deposited in the names of petitioners 2 and 3

immediately.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)
aks