Court No. - 49 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 784 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Shyama Devi And Others Respondent :- Addl. District Judge/M.A.C.T. Firozabad Petitioner Counsel :- Prmaod Kumar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,S.K. Mehrotra Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents to oppose
the writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order
dated 28.02.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T. Court no.
3, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2008, M.A.C.P. No. 176 of 2005, Smt.
Shayama Devi Vs. O.I.C. Company and others.
The facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioners filed
M.A.C.P. No. 176 of 2005 before the M.A.C.T. Firozabad for being awarded
Rs. 17, 60, 000/- as compensation for the death of deceased Mahesh husband
of the petitioner no. 1 and father of the petitioner no. 2 to 5. The M.A.C.T.,
Firozabad vide its judgment dated 30.11.2007 awarded Rs. 3, 16, 200/-
alongwith interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants/petitioners to be paid by
the owner of the vehicle Devendra Sing respondent no. 2. The judgment
further provided that since the statutory liability for payment of compensation
awarded is upon the insurance company respondent no. 3, the amount of
compensation shall be deposited by the insurance company within 30 days of
the judgment and the insurance company shall be entitled to recover the said
amount from the owner of the vehicle and the amount so deposited shall be
paid to the petitioners.
The insurance company deposited the amount awarded as compensation with
the M.A.C.T., Firozabad. The amount which was payable to the minor
petitioner nos. 2 to 5 as compensation under the judgment of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal was directed to be invested in interest bearing fixed
deposit scheme by the judgment of the Claims tribunal. After the passing of
the award the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 Km. Priti and Km.Jyoti died. Thereafter
two applications were moved by the petitioners for release of the amount of
compensation deposited by the insurance company with the Tribunal. By the
impugned order dated 28.02.2009 the aforesaid applications moved by the
petitioners have been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reasons given in the
impugned order by the M.A.C.T. Firozabad for refusing to release the amount
of compensation to the petitioners are totally misconceived and untenable.
He further submitted that the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 have died leaving behind
the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 5 as their heirs and legal representatives, therefore
their share in the amount of compensation devolved upon the petitioner nos.
1, 2 and 5 and no succession certificate was required to be obtained by them
for release of the share of compensation of deceased petitioner nos. 3 and 4 to
the petitioner nos. 2 and 5 as held by the court below.
Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the Claims Tribunal
has further committed a patent illegality in refusing to release the amount of
compensation to the petitioners unless the owner furnishes security for the
amount of compensation deposited by the insurance company.
None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ
petition.
After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
material brought on record as well as the impugned order I am of the view
that the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners have
substance and liable to be accepted.
Once the insurance company deposited the entire amount of compensation in
terms of the judgment dated 30.11.2007 passed by the M.A.C.T., Firozabad in
M.A.C.P. No. 176 of 2005, the said amount is liable to be released in favour
of the petitioners. As far as the share of deceased petitioner nos. 3 and 4 in the
amount of compensation is concerned, the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 5 being
their heirs and legal representatives, the share of the deceased petitioners shall
devolve equally upon the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 5. It is undisputed that the
petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were unmarred. The release of compensation could not
be withheld also on the ground that the owner has not furnished security.
Thus the reasons given by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned order
rejecting the petitioners’ application for releasing of the compensation amount
in their favour are wholly misconceived.
For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order can not be sustained and is
liable to be set aside.
The order dated 28.02.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T.
Court no. 3, Firozabad (Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) is hereby
quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the M.A.C.T.,
Firozabad with a direction him to pass a fresh order on the petitioners’
application for release of the compensation amount in favour of petitioner
nos. 1, 2 and 5 within a period of one months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 1.7.2010
YK