Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 289 (KAR)

Renuka @ Bharathi v. Fakiravva

2019-01-30

B.V.NAGARATHNA, BELLUNKE A.S.

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.V. Nagarathna, J. - Though this appeal is listed for preliminary hearing, on hearing the matter on several dates, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. The legality and correctness of order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.109207/2016 is questioned in this appeal. By the said order, a direction was issued by this Court to the respondent/North-West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent/Corporation' , for the sake of convenience) to release all the terminal benefits on account of death of Sannafakkirappa in harness to petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(e), who are none other than the siblings of Sannafakkirappa and further, to release the arrears of family pension, if any, admissible under the service regulations to the deceased original petitioner Smt.Fakkiravva i.e., the mother of Sannafakkirappa and if there is delay in payment of terminal benefits and arrears of pension, then to pay interest at 12% per annum, in case if it was not paid within three months. It was further directed that the interest would be recovered from those employees who are responsible for the delay or denial of the family pension and terminal benefits. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4/Corporation and perused the material on record. 4. Succinctly stated, the facts are that Sannafakkirappa was working as a driver bearing buckle No.1798 in Hubballi Rural-Second Unit of respondent/Corporation. He died in harness on 03.12.2011 due to jaundice. The mother of Sannafakkirappa, claiming to be the only surviving legal heir, had filed a representation dated 18.05.2012 as per Annexure-D to the second respondent/Divisional Controller seeking settlement of terminal benefits of her deceased son on account of financial difficulties faced by her. 5. She contended that though respondent No.4 in the writ petition/appellant herein was nominated in the Service Register as the wife of the deceased, she had given up her claims in terms of the compromise recorded by the JMFC Court, Saundatti in Criminal Misc. No.347/2008 disposed off on 28.11.2011. Therefore, a plea was made that the original petitioner i.e., the mother of Sannafakkirappa/the deceased was entitled to all the terminal benefits. No.347/2008 disposed off on 28.11.2011. Therefore, a plea was made that the original petitioner i.e., the mother of Sannafakkirappa/the deceased was entitled to all the terminal benefits. She also contended that O.S. No.76/2015 was filed against the appellant herein before the III Additional Civil Judge, Hubballi seeking a declaration that she is the only legal heir of the deceased Sannafakkirappa and the said suit was decreed. She further contended that the respondent/Corporation had issued an endorsement dated 17.06.2016 at Annexure 'G' that she was instructed to submit Form-10D accompanied by relevant documents to make the claim. That all the relevant documents were submitted in the third week of July 2016. But, even after a lapse of a year, there had been no payment of terminal benefits as well as the family pension accrued in the name of Sannafakkirappa. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, Fakkiravva-the original petitioner died on 29.10.2017 and her legal representatives were brought on record as petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(e). In the said writ petition, initially, the appellant here was not arrayed as a party. Thereafter, she was impleaded as respondent No.4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, though in the cause-title of the impugned judgment, it is shown that the appellant, who was respondent No.4 in the writ petition, was served, she was not served and neither was represented in the writ petition in person or through counsel. Therefore, in the absence of hearing the appellant herein, the impugned directions could not have been issued by the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved by order dated 09.04.2018 containing the aforesaid directions, this appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits in the first instance, the writ petition has been disposed off without hearing the appellant who was arrayed as respondent No.4, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the appellant, being a widow of the deceased Sannafakkirappa, is a nominee in the service register of Sannafakkirappa/her husband. That she is entitled to the terminal benefits as well as family pension. That appellant's mother-in-law could not have sought for payment of the terminal benefits, family pension and arrears of family pension in only her name. 8. That pursuant to the impugned order, CCC No.100116/2018 has been filed before this Court. That she is entitled to the terminal benefits as well as family pension. That appellant's mother-in-law could not have sought for payment of the terminal benefits, family pension and arrears of family pension in only her name. 8. That pursuant to the impugned order, CCC No.100116/2018 has been filed before this Court. In that proceedings, a direction was issued to respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) to deposit the amount that had been paid to them by the respondent/Corporation pursuant to the directions issued in the impugned order. That the said respondents have complied with the said direction of this Court and they have deposited a sum of Rs.2,37,132/- before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to the entire amount, as her mother-in-law is dead and her legal heirs are not entitled to any amount. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to set aside the impugned order and direct the Registry of this Court to pay the amount of Rs.2,37,132/- to the appellant and also direct the respondent/Corporation to pay all other dues that she is entitled to. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) supporting the impugned order, with reference to his statement of objections, contended that the appellant is not entitled to her claims. That it has been declared that the original petitioner/mother of the deceased is the only heir of the deceased. That the appellant may have married subsequently. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim any benefits that have accrued on account of the death of Sannafakkirappa. He submitted that there is no merit in the writ appeal and the appeal may be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4/Corporation in compliance of the directions issued by this Court yesterday (29.01.2019) has filed an affidavit of Sri.Sanjay S/o.Suresh Masumali, Accounts Officer of the respondent- Corporation stating that the benefits that has accrued on account of the death of Sannafakkirappa are tabulated as under: Sl.No. Head of Account Amount Remarks (i) Gratuity Rs.1,80,357/- Same was paid to Honnappa by cheque dated 04.10.2018. (ii) Leave Encashment Rs.56,775/- Same was paid to Honnappa by cheque dated 05.10.2018 (iii) DRBF Rs.20,000/- with accumulated interest File was sent to the Central Office, Bengaluru for settlement. (ii) Leave Encashment Rs.56,775/- Same was paid to Honnappa by cheque dated 05.10.2018 (iii) DRBF Rs.20,000/- with accumulated interest File was sent to the Central Office, Bengaluru for settlement. (iv) Provident Fund Rs.25,808/- with accumulated interest File was sent to the Central Office, Bengaluru for settlement (v) Family Pension -- The appellant submits application in Form 10D and the same will be sent to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for taking necessary action. 12. He submits that a sum of Rs.1,80,357/- being the gratuity amount and a sum of Rs.56,775/- being the leave encashment benefits have been paid to Honnappa - brother of Sannafakkirappa on 04.10.2018 and 05.10.2018 respectively, which amount is now deposited by Honnappa before this Court. That DRBF benefit of Rs.20,000/- and provident fund of Rs.25,808/- would be paid directly to the account of the legal heirs and that the family pension would be paid to the appellant who is the widow of Sannafakkirappa. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, therefore, submitted that appropriate directions may be issued in the matter. 13. The controversy in this case is in a very narrow compass. It is noted that the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition without hearing respondent No.4 in the said matter, who is none other than the appellant herein. It is noted from the cause-title of the impugned order that respondent No.4 was served whereas according to the appellant, she was not served as she did not reside at Kotagondahunasi village at which address steps were taken. Therefore, the appellant did not appear before the learned Single Judge either in person or through counsel as she was not served. Therefore, on that short ground alone, the impugned order would have to be set aside as being in violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. We have said the matter is in a very narrow compass. Therefore, the appellant did not appear before the learned Single Judge either in person or through counsel as she was not served. Therefore, on that short ground alone, the impugned order would have to be set aside as being in violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. We have said the matter is in a very narrow compass. Inspite of simply remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication, having regard to the settled principle of law and the fact that Sannafakkirappa, husband of appellant and son of the original petitioner- Smt.Fakkiravva has died and the monetary benefits have accrued to his estate on account of his death, Fakkiravva and the appellant herein being the Class-I heirs under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity), they are entitled to monetary benefits that have accrued on account of the death of Sannafakkirappa while in service. They must be succeeded to by his mother and his widow, who are the two Class-I heirs, as Sannafakkirappa and the appellant had no children. In the circumstances, they are entitled to succeed to the monetary benefits equally in terms of Section 8 of the Act. 15. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant's name has been shown as the nominee in the Service Register and therefore, only the appellant is entitled to the benefits. We, however, rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT.SARBATI DEVI & ANOTHER Vs. SMT.USHA DEVI, (1984) AIR SC 346 to repel the said contention that the nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer, or the employer as in the instant case, gets a valid discharge of its liability. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs in accordance with law of succession governing them. 16. In the circumstances, the appellant only cannot seek release of terminal benefits and other monetary benefits in the name of the appellant only, only because her name finds a place as a nominee in the Service Register. As already noted, the appellant and the mother Smt.Fakkiravva of the deceased are both entitled to receive an equal share in the terminal benefits. As already noted, the appellant and the mother Smt.Fakkiravva of the deceased are both entitled to receive an equal share in the terminal benefits. Since a sum of Rs.2,37,132/- has been deposited by only respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) before this Court and further, they are also entitled to DRBF amount of Rs.20,000/- and provident fund of Rs.25,808/- totaling to Rs.2,82,940/-, keeping that figure in mind, 50% of the amount shall be payable to the appellant herein and the balance 50% to respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) as the original petitioner-respondent No.1 who is dead. Therefore, the Registry is directed to release a sum of Rs.1,41,470/- to the appellant herein after due identification forthwith. The balance amount of Rs.95,662/- shall be released to respondent No.1(e) which has to be shared by respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e). Further, respondent No.1(e) is at liberty to make a representation for release of DRBF amount and provident fund amount to the concerned authorities. 17. In this regard, submission of the learned counsel for the appellant made on behalf of the appellant, in the presence of the appellant and on instructions, that the appellant has no objection for respondent No.1(e) to make a representation to seek release of DRBF amount and provident fund amount with accumulated interest, is placed on record. 18. Further, respondent/Corporation shall compute the family pension to be payable to the appellant and release the arrears of family pension and continue to pay the family pension regularly to the appellant as and when it falls due. For that purpose, the appellant to submit Form No.10(D) and to comply with all legal formalities to seek the said arrears of pension and current family pension. 19. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation that the Corporation has an arrangement with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bengaluru for release of family pension. 20. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bengaluru is directed to release the arrears of family pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of an application to be filed by the appellant herein. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall continue to pay the family pension to the appellant as and when it falls due. 21. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited in a Post Office deposit or in any nationalised bank for an initial period of ten years. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall continue to pay the family pension to the appellant as and when it falls due. 21. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited in a Post Office deposit or in any nationalised bank for an initial period of ten years. The appellant shall be entitled to receive the periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance amount shall be utilised by the appellant. The appellant to furnish a copy of the post-office deposit receipt or the receipt issued by any nationalised bank before this Court. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation very fairly submits that the appellant has sought for appointment on compassionate grounds and an application dated 21.12.2018 has been filed. That the said application shall be processed and considered in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and to communicate to the appellant the result of the said consideration. 23. We place on record the valuable service rendered by Sri.Shivakumar S.Badawadagi, learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation and the assistance of the Corporation in this matter. 24. In view of the disposal of the appeal, IA Nos.3 and 4 of 2018 have been disposed. IA No.1 of 2019 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.