IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.44647 OF 2018(GM-AC) Between:
Savitramma, W/o Late Ramachandriah @ Chandranna, Aged about 43 years, Residing at Aralimaradapalya, Sira Gate, Tumakuru – 562106. (By Sri.Shantharaj.K, Advocate) And:
The Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, Division Office, P.B.No.88, No.1137/947, 2nd Floor, RUB Building, B.H.Road, Shimoga – 577201.
… Petitioner …Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 28.12.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru on I.A. in MVC No.416/2010 at Annex-C is illegal, erroneous on the face of the records, resulting in miscarriage of justice and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Shantharaj.K, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 28.12.2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakur in MVC No.416/2010, by which prayer for withdrawal of the amount of compensation made by the petitioner has been rejected.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was awarded the amount of compensation on account of motor vehicle accident. In compliance of the aforesaid award, respondent deposited the amount of compensation. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for release of the amount deposited by the respondent in Fixed Deposit. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that this Court has directed to keep Rs.2,00,000/- in a Fixed Deposit for a period of ten years. Therefore, the amount cannot be released in favour of the petitioner. It was further held that since no authenticated document has been filed in support of the petitioner for withdrawal of the amount, the amount cannot be released.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘A.V.PADMA AND OTHERS VS. R.VENUGOPAL AND OTHERS’, (2012) 3 SCC 378, wherein it has been held that sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long-term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the aforesaid discretion has not been exercised on the sound principles of law.
5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the records.
6. From perusal of the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.11328/2012, it is evident that the Division Bench has directed that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be invested in Fixed Deposit for a period of ten years and remaining amount of Rs.50,060/- shall be released in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal could not have entertained the claim of the petitioner with regard to release of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file an application before the Division Bench of this Court. Besides that, from perusal of the order, it is evident that the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that no supporting documents have been filed in support of the prayer for withdrawal of the amount and therefore, the amount in question cannot be released. The aforesaid finding by the Tribunal no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse.
7. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423]. In the instant case the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
8. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the Division Bench of this Court and to make an application afresh, if so advised, before the Claims Tribunal duly supported by the documents, which shall be dealt with by the Tribunal in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-