JUDGMENT

Petitioners are the mother and wife of the deceased Sudheesh, who unfortunately sustained bodily injuries during the course of his employment. Accordingly, the Workmen’s Compensation Act was referred before the competent Tribunal and vide award dated 04.04.2021, the minor child, mother and widow were held entitled to compensation of Rs.48,384/- (Rupees forty eight thousand three hundred and eighty four only) along with the interest at the rate of 12% from 10.08.2002 in equal shares. However, after the decision of the case, he unfortunately died and accordingly petitioners submitted a Family Certificate Ext.P5 dated 06.05.2022 reflecting legal heirs of the deceased Sudheesh, namely Gopi (Father), Komalam (Mother), Silji (Wife) and Devi Krishna (Daughter).

2. Learned Employees Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal) vide order dated

03.06.2022 Ext.P7 did not accept the Family Certificate and insisted the petitioners to obtain a Legal heir Certificate for the purpose of receiving the compensation. It is contended that the aforementioned observations are totally alien and contrary to the decision rendered by this Court in OP(MAC) No.1 of

2019 decided on 16.11.2019 Ext.P8.

3. Issue notice before admission. Smt.K.S.Santhi, appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company accepts notice and opposed the impugned order by submitting that until and unless legal heir certificate is not placed on record, petitioners cannot be disbursed the compensation deposited on behalf of the insurance company along with the interest.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

5. The factum of the case that Sudheesh having suffered the injury while performing the duty as a cleaner on 10.08.2002 while plying a lorry PY-01/ S-7574 and the passing of the award dated 04.04.2011 are not in dispute. It is a matter of record that after the passing of the award Sudheesh unfortunately died on 13.03.2012. In the meantime the respondents insurance company had deposited the compensation along with the interest. Petitioner submitted the certificate of family reflecting the family members as referred to above but the order of the Tribunal insisting for legal heir certificate, in my view it is wholly unjust and uncalled for, in view of the decision rendered by 2021(5) KHC 736 in Premalatha Subhash Vs. State of Kerala and Others. paragraph No.9 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

“9. On the petitioner's own showing, she has applied for heirship certificate for the sale of the property of deceased Lakshmi Anandan and not for the purposes specified in Clause 261 of the Kerala Village Manual and G.O.(MS) No. 359/67/ RD dated 10/08/1967. A certificate of Legal Heirship can be obtained under e- services available under the Kerala Information

Technology (Electronic Delivery of Services) Rules, 2010 and the format of Legal Heirship Certificate to be issued in Form 6C appended to the said Rules has to state the purpose for which the certificate is issued. If the purpose is not the one as specified in the Kerala Village Manual and G.O.(MS) No. 359/67/ RD dated 10/08/1967, the question of jurisdiction of the Tahsildar on the basis of place of residence of the deceased or the heirs does not arise for consideration for issuance of the heirship certificate and the application need not be entertained. The petitioner's contention that, Ext.P1 partition deed would show that Lakshmi Anandan was permanently residing at the address at Thalassery Taluk is of no relevance.”

For the reasons aforementioned impugned order is set aside. Petitioners are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the Insurance company on the basis of the family certificate. Writ petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE vv APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23420/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

04.04.2011 IN WCC 415/2002 OF THE COURT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, THRISSUR Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SU