K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner is one of the claimants in O.P. (MV) No. 1213 of 2005, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Palakkad. The claim was filed for compensation with respect to the death of the petitioner's son in a motor accident, wherein the petitioner's son, who was riding a bicycle, was hit by a jeep and was run over by a lorry coming from the opposite side. The respondents 1 and 2 are the insurers of the vehicles, who were mulcted with equal liability as per Exhibit P1 award, arrived at on settlement.

2. The wife of the petitioner and two other sons were the other claimants before the Tribunal.

"The Tribunal rightly declined the claim of the two other sons and the amount of Rupees Three lakhs arrived at, on settlement, was equally apportioned between 1st and 2nd claimants, being the petitioner herein and his wife. Rupees One lakh each was directed to be paid to the father and mother of the deceased and the balance was directed to be deposited in Fixed Deposit, equally in their respective names."

3. The controversy arose when Exhibit P2 application was filed before the Tribunal seeking disbursement of the amount deposited, which was subsequently converted as Fixed Deposit Receipt. The application filed as I.A. No. 232 of 2011 was rejected by Exhibit P3 on the ground that no legal heirship certificate was produced.

4. This Court called for a report from the Tribunal and the Tribunal has reported that the award specifically directed production of legal heirship certificate and, hence, Exhibit P3 dismissal was made. The report goes one step ahead and explains the dismissal further on the premise that there was no averment in the affidavit filed along with the application that the petitioner was a legal representative of the deceased and that he would not be shown as a legal heir of the deceased, since the mother of the deceased, the Class I heir, is alive.

5. It is not as if the Tribunal was not aware of the legal position. A lacuna in the affidavit could have been directed to be cured and that is how the judicial system inspires confidence in the minds of people. This Court would abstain from making any observation regarding the conduct of the Tribunal, since the award stipulated production of a legal heirship certificate and the Tribunal dealing with an Interlocutory Application would have found it difficult to go beyond the stipulation. Suffice it to say that what has now been stated in the report, to impress the superior Court, when report was called for, ideally should have found a place in the order impugned herein.

6. This Court, however, is not fettered by such technicalities, especially when jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is invoked and this Court could, definitely, in such writ/original petition invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to do justice.

7. The facts leading to the award are not necessary, since the issue is only whether a legal heirship certificate is required for disbursement of amounts to dependants who claimed compensation before the Tribunal, as legal representatives. The issue is not res integra, in view of the decisions in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561, Custodian, Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino vs. Nalini Bai, AIR 1989 SC 1589 and Cheriyakutty Mammi vs. Ummerkutty, 1995 (2) KLT 555, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. In Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (supra) the question whether, only those persons who were entitled to claim damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 on the death of a person, viz. the wife, husband, parent and child of the deceased, alone would be entitled to claim damages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity M.V. Act) came up for consideration. Such restriction was argued on the ground that Chapter VII of the M.V. Act was merely procedural, providing an alternate forum and the substantial law remain