Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 962 (MAD)

Ramaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and another

2001-08-27

S.JAGADEESAN

body2001
ORDER: The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a declaration declaring the Sub-rules (8) to (11) of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said Sub-rules are violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The said Sub-rules classified the claims under three categories: "Literate; Semi-literate and illiterate." The said classification has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the said Sub-rules. Further the said Sub-rules are violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Art.19 of the Constitution of India. The Award amount being the property of the claimant, there cannot be any restriction with regard to the enjoyment of the said property without any reasonable cause. The condition imposed under the said Sub-rules cannot be considered as reasonable, when there is no cause for imposing such restriction. 3. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is worthwhile to have a look at the Sub-rules: "Extract of Sub-rules (8) to (11) of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989: 8. The Claims Tribunal, shall, in the case of illiterate claimants, order that the amount of compensation awarded be invested in fixed deposits for a minimum period of three years but if any amount is required for effecting purchase of any movable or immovable property for improving the income of the claimant, the Claims Tribunal may consider such a request after being satisfied that the amount would be actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. 9. The Claims Tribunal, shall, in the case of semi-literate person resort to the procedure for the deposit of award amounts set out in Sub-rule (8) unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for the expansion of any existing business or for the purchase of some property as specified and mentioned in Sub-rule (8). 10. 10. The Claims Tribunal, may, in the case of literate persons also resort to the procedure for deposit of award amounts specified in Sub-rule (8) subject to the relation specified in Sub-rules (8) and (9) if having regard to the age, fiscal back-ground and status of society to which the claimant belongs and such other consideration, the Claims Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded, thinks it necessary to order. 11. The Claims Tribunal, may, in personal injury cases, if further treatment is necessary, on being satisfied which shall be recorded in writing permit the withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for the expenses of such treatment." 4. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 20 of the said Rules contemplates the deposit of the award amount for three years, if the claimants are illiterate. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 20 of the said Rules envisages that the Presiding Officer has to explain to the claimants, if they are semi-literate to resort to the procedure for the deposit of the award. If it is satisfied that the claimant is requiring the amount for the expansion of any existing business or for purchase of property, the amount can be released. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 20 of the said Rules deals with those claimants, who are literate. 5. Here again, it is the duty of the Presiding Officer to explain the procedure to deposit and if the reason given by the claimant for the withdrawal of the amount if justifiable, the amount can be disbursed. The classification of the claimants had been made in these sub-rules only to safe-guard their own interest. If the claimants are illiterate, there is a possibility of misleading them by the third parties and they may be deprived of the compensation amount. Hence, the Legislature thought fit that such of those illiterate claimants’ interest should be safe-guarded by imposing certain restrictions with regard to the withdrawal of the amount; lest being spent away without any reasonableness. 6. It is a known factor that the illiterate, many a times, would fall victim in the hands of the cunning intellects. Hence, the Legislature thought fit that such of those illiterate claimants’ interest should be safe-guarded by imposing certain restrictions with regard to the withdrawal of the amount; lest being spent away without any reasonableness. 6. It is a known factor that the illiterate, many a times, would fall victim in the hands of the cunning intellects. When they become the victims of such cunning intellects, naturally they are deprived of the compensation amount, which they legally obtained under the Award from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the loss of the life of their blood relation or close relation as the legal heir of the deceased. When they get the Award amount as the legal heir of the deceased, naturally, their interest should be safe-guarded so that they alone can have the benefit of such compensation amount. By such direction to deposit the amount, it is not as if the claimants are totally prohibited from withdrawing the same. Sub-rule (11) of Rule 20 of the said Rules envisages and empowers the claimants to file an application for withdrawal of the amount in case of any necessity to meet the medical expenses. The Tribunal is vested with the power either to permit withdrawal or to reject or to restrict the amount of withdrawal considering the necessity of the claimants. Hence, it cannot be said that there is a total bar on the claimants from enjoying the compensation amount. In other words, the restriction imposed by way of directing the claimants to deposit the amount is only a reasonable restriction and as such, the same will not amount to any violation of Art.19 of the Constitution of India. 7. Coming to the classification of semi-literate and literate under Sub-rules (9) and (10), they are clear that a duty is cast upon the Presiding Officer to explain the procedure to deposit so that the semi-literate or the literate claimant can understand the reason for depositing the amount and if he thinks that he will be more benefited, if the amount is disbursed instead of keeping it in deposit, it is for such claimant to convince the Presiding Officer with regard to the reasonableness of the withdrawal. The discretion has been granted to the Presiding Officer to consider the necessity of the claimant to withdraw the amount and if the necessity alleged falls within the reasonableness or necessity, naturally, the claimant will be permitted to withdraw the amount. The classification also cannot be said to offend Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The said Sub-rules themselves are very clear as to why the different classification has been made in respect of the claimants. According to the classifications, the Presiding Officer is expected to discharge the functions either in making a direction to deposit or in permitting the claimant to withdraw. The classification itself is satisfying the nexus or the reason for such a classification. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced with regard to the validity of the said Sub-rules. 8. Though the Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal is directed to deposit the amount, in case the claimant does not require the same for immediate need, Sub-Rule (12) of Rule 20 of the said Rules contemplates the Presiding Officer to have regard to the maximum return by way of periodical income to the claimants by depositing the amount in the public sector undertakings. Equally, Sub-Rule (13) of Rule 20 of the said Rules contemplates the payment of interest periodically to the claimant directly thereby preventing any third parties to handle the same. If the third parties intervention is there, then, there is no doubt that the claimant’s real benefit is being lost. The Legislature might have taken into consideration all these aspects. 9. Accordingly, the validity of the said Sub-rules are upheld and the same are quite within the legislative competence and are not ultra vires of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.