Sri Hemachandra vs Mr. Shankara and The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 09.04.2013 passed on I.A. No. V by the MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in MVC No. 90/2010. The issue herein is limited only with regard to the disbursement of the amount of compensation which has already been deposited by the second respondent before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, notice to respondents No. 1 and 2 is unnecessary, inasmuch as the application filed before the Tribunal would arise for consideration even in the absence of the respondents.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ papers.

The records would disclose that the petitioner had filed a claim petition in MVC No. 90/2010. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,35,000/- and has further directed that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- be kept in a Fixed Deposit and the balance amount was ordered to be released to the claimant. On the second respondent depositing the compensation amount, the Fixed Deposit has been made, as directed by the Tribunal. At this juncture, the petitioner has expressed certain difficulties before the Tribunal and in that view has sought that the amount kept in deposit be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner. In that regard, I.A. No. IV was filed wherein the reasons seeking for such release has been put forth. Subsequently, I.A. No. V was also filed seeking consideration of I.A. No. IV. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 09.04.2013 has dismissed I.A. No. V only on the ground that the Fixed Deposit which had been made has not yet matured and the same would mature on 23.01.2017.

Having noticed these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in passing such a cryptic order on I.A. No. V inasmuch as the application in I.A. No. IV in fact has been filed indicating the reasons for early disbursal of the amount by pre-closing the Fixed Deposit. Therefore, the Tribunal in fact is required to apply its mind to the reasons put forth in I.A. No. IV and thereafter come to a conclusion as to whether the prayer of the petitioner is to be accepted and a direction should be issued to close the Fixed Deposit prematurely and thereafter pay the amount. Since the said exercise has not been made by the Tribunal, the rejection of I.A. No. V in the manner as done is not sustainable. Therefore, the order dated 09.04.2013 is set-aside. The Tribunal is directed to take up I.A. No. IV for consideration. On considering the request of the petitioner, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the amount is to be released, appropriate order shall be made in that regard directing the Bank to pre-close the deposit as per the bank regulations. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the application and the Tribunal shall take its own decision on I.A. No. IV.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.