Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1669 (PNJ)

Ravinder Kaur~ v. Lakhbir Singh

2013-12-13

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.:- Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby application moved by the petitioner to get premature release of amount of Rs.3 lacs lying in FDR No.T10/MTDQ-003497 dated 19.09.2013 prepared for a period of five years as per Award dated 02.01.2009 of the Tribunal, has been dismissed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that vide Award dated 02.01.2009, the petitioner along with proforma respondent no.4 was awarded compensation. Vide the said Award, the share of petitioner amounting to Rs.3 lacs was ordered to be deposited in some nationalized bank in a fixed deposit for a period of five years which was subsequently deposited vide FDR No.T10/MTDQ-003497 dated 19.09.2013 in Indian Bank, Kurukshetra. The petitioner moved an application for release of premature amount of said FDR which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 08.10.2013. Hence, this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in the dire need of money for the welfare of her family. 5. It may be noted here that in case General Manger, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Others AIR 1994 SC 1631 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued certain guidelines in order to “safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries [due] to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation”. 6. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the observations made in Susamma Thomas (supra) in case A.V.Padma and others vs. R. Venugopal and others, [2012(2) Law Herald (SC) 1283] : (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378 and has observed as under: “7. The expression used in guideline (iv) issued by this Court in Susamma Thomas case is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. The expression used in guideline (iv) issued by this Court in Susamma Thomas case is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. 8. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi- literate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money. 9. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money. 9. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him. 10. The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant’s application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice.” 7. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the amount of Rs.3 lacs deposited in FDR can be released to the petitioner, as she needs money for her family. Even, the release of paltry amount would not serve the purpose of petitioner specially when in the present day the prices are high. The money deposited in the bank would rather benefit the bank. The increasing cost of living cannot be lost sight. Even, the release of paltry amount would not serve the purpose of petitioner specially when in the present day the prices are high. The money deposited in the bank would rather benefit the bank. The increasing cost of living cannot be lost sight. Nonrelease or delayed release of compensation amount will expose the petitioner to serious prejudice and economic ruining. 8. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, the instant revision is allowed, impugned order dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure P-3) is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner seeking release of amount of Rs.3 lacs lying in FDR No.T10/MTDQ-003497 dated 19.09.2013 in Indian Bank, Kurukshetra stands allowed.