Smt. Shyama Devi and Others vs Addl. District Judge/M.A.C.T.

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 v. O.I.C. Co. and Ors.

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.