Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 37648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
ANANTHU SAJEEV @ ANANDHU SAJEEV – Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Respondent
OP (MAC) NO. 56 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RINU. S. ASWAN, SMT.GOPIKA H.H
For the Respondents: SRI. LAL K. JOSEPH, SC.
The court mandated adherence to updated governmental directives on valuation certifications affecting the disbursement of fixed deposits in accident claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Accident Claims - Legal provisions relevant to valuation certificates and fixed deposits in claims - The petitioner challenged the M.A.C.T.'s refusal to release fixed deposits based on valuation certificates deemed inadequate. The court directed reconsideration of the application per a government circular expanding competent authority certifications. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
(B) Appeals - Jurisdiction of High Court in reviewing tribunal orders - High Court instructed previous orders to be set aside and the tribunal to make a fresh determination based on proper certification. (Paras 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner requested the release of a fixed deposit amount but faced rejection due to inadequately assessed valuation certificates presented. The petitioner provided legal grounds for why the rejection was improper based on state circulars about valuation authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the tribunal to reconsider the petitioner’s application and ensure it complies with governmental stipulations on valuation assessments within a stipulated time frame.
Issues: The primary issues entailed the legality of the Tribunal’s requirements for valuation certifications and the petitioner’s entitlement to release funds for financial support.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the M.A.C.T. to adhere to the directives in the government circular regarding competent authorities for valuations and the necessity for timely resolutions in such matters.
Result: O.P. (MAC) is allowed as above.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks release of fixed deposit based on certification. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner’s arguments regarding certification challenges tribunal’s refusal. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-
“i) Issue an appropriate order or direction to set aside the Ext P9 of the Hon’ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam and issue an ancillary direction to disburse sufficient and suitable amounts to the petitioner secured in the fixed deposits maintained by the Hon’ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam as in the need of the hour and for meeting up his financial exigencies from time to time based on the sufficient security viz. original title deeds held in the custody of the Hon’ble Claims Tribunal and in the interest of justice.
OR ii) To issue an appropriate order or direction to the Hon’ble M.A.C.T, Kollam to disburse an amount of Rs. 34,80,290/- to the Bank account of the Petitioner lying as Fixed Deposit with a lien marked on it.
AND iii) To pass an order or direction to dispense the production of the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.
iv) To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant. ”
2. Petitioner submits that the reason for rejecting the request made by the petitioner for releasing the fixed deposit of Rs.34,80,290/- as per the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.30985 of 2024 was that the valuation certificate produced by the petitioner as regards the land and building covered by the title deed, which was offered as security, was assessed by an engineer and therefore the same cannot be accepted. There was a further direction to produce the fair value certificate of the land or the valuation certificate with respect to the land issued by the Village Officer.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits based on the Circular issued by the Government of Kerala dated 10.08.2016, which expanded the list of engineers by adding the engineers not below the rank of Assistant Engineer of Public Works Department, Irrigation Department, the Kerala Water Authority and also Chartered Engineers, Approved Valuers, Registered Valuers, Registered Architects/Engineers, that the impugned order is illegal, as even a format for the valuation certificate to be issued by the competent authority is stipulated.
Under such circumstances, there will be a direction to the Tribunal concerned to reconsider I. A No.1 of 2024 in light of Ext.P10 Circular dated 10.08.2016, and if the valuation submitted by the petitioner conforms to the requirement in Ext.P10, the application submitted by the petitioner shall be allowed. A fresh decision as directed above shall be taken by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in I. A No.1 of 2024 in O.P(M.V) No.920 of 2020 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the above exercise, Ext.P9 order is set aside, and the O.P. (MAC) is allowed as above.
Sd/-
