P.R.Sarasu vs The National Insurance Co. Ltd on 25 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8309 of 2009(G)


1. P.R.SARASU, W/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :25/03/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                  W.P.(C) NO. 8309 OF 2009 (G)
                 =====================

            Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the MACT,

Ernakulam in EA 7338/08 in EP No.276/07 in OP(MV)

No.789/2000. Ext.P1 is the award passed by the MACT in the

aforesaid OP granting compensation to the claimants therein.

2. In so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, she

being the wife of the deceased, was allowed Rs.7.32 lakhs, out of

which, Rs. 2 lakhs was ordered to be released. Referring to Ext.P4

produced along with IA 4246/09, petitioner submits that she is a

cancer patient undergoing treatment at the Regional Cancer

Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that to meet her

treatment expenses and also to discharge the liability that she

incurred for treatment purposes, she needs the amount in deposit

to be released. Accordingly, petitioner filed EA 7338/08, a copy of

which is Ext.P2. In that EA, the Tribunal passed Ext.P3 order

ordering release of Rs.2 lakhs. The Tribunal also held that the

affidavit is a reproduction of an earlier one and that the claim was

not supported by any evidence.

WPC 8309/09
:2 :

3. Since the petitioner is actually a cancer patient as is

seen from Ext.P4, her prayer that she needs money for meeting

the treatment expenses and to discharge the liability that she has

incurred cannot be said to be lacking in bonafides, provided the

petitioner is able to substantiate the same. Since by Ext.P3, Rs.2

lakhs has already been ordered to be released in order to meet

the urgent requirements of the petitioner, it is directed that if the

petitioner has any further need for money, it will be open to the

petitioner to approach the Tribunal, producing material in support

of such claim. If the petitioner makes such an application in this

behalf, the Tribunal shall consider the same untramelled by the

observations in Ext.P3 and pass necessary orders.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp