In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that, the appellant received the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, on the death of her husband in a motor accident. In the light of the principle enunciated in the decisions referred to supra, out of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal the amount of compensation by way of 'loss to the estate' of the deceased represents the money equivalent of the loss sustained by the appellant as a legal representative of the deceased, which cannot be proceeded against for realising any amount due from the deceased. On the other hand, the amount of compensation, if any, received by way of 'loss of estate', under the heads pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of amenities, etc. of the deceased, which goes to the appellant as the legal representative of the deceased by virtue of Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, could be proceeded against for realising any amount due from the deceased. In the case on hand, there is no material to indicate that the appellant had received any compensation by way of 'loss of estate'. Moreover, even if the appellant had received any compensation by way of 'loss of estate' on the death of her husband, that will not entitle the 4th respondent society to proceed against the attachable portion of her salary, since recourse to such a procedure can be permitted only if there is a specific agreement executed by the appellant in terms of Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, read with Rule 52 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Therefore, merely for the reason that, on the death of her husband, the appellant received certain amount of compensation in the motor accident claim, the attachable portion of her salary cannot be proceeded against for realising the balance amount outstanding in the loan availed by her late husband from the 4th respondent society. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 communication of the 3rd respondent directing the 5th respondent to proceed against the salary of the appellant cannot be sustained.
21. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that, since the appellant obtained compassionate employment on the death of her husband; received a sizable amount as compensation in the motor accident claim; and undertaken in Ext.R4(b) to wipe off the liability of her late husband after paying Rs.10,000/-, the 4th respondent society is justified in proceeding against the attachable portion of her salary.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
Writ Appeal No.1022 of 2015
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2015
APPELLANT
T A ARCHANA
Vs
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
