Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1825 (ALL)

FARMOODI v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

2013-07-11

TARUN AGARWALA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter-affidavit. A claim application was filed by the petitioner under the Motor Vehicles Act against the owners of the vehicle and the insurance company for compensation in a case where the son of the petitioner died in a motor accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal gave an award dated 11th September, 2012 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,28,500/- (Three lacs twenty eight thousand and five hundred) in favour of the petitioner and directed the insurance company to deposit the entire amount alongwith interest. The Tribunal further directed that 50 per cent of the amount would be paid to the petitioner and the balance 50 per cent would be kept in the nationalized bank for a period of five years. 2. The said award was accepted by the insurance company and the amount has been deposited before the Tribunal, pursuant to which, 50 per cent of the amount has been withdrawn by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner thereafter moved an application before the Tribunal seeking permission for release of the balance amount in her favour contending that her eldest daughter was going to get married and that the amount was required for the expenses involved in the marriage. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to give details of the expenses incurred by her for the amount already released in her favour, and consequently, the balance amount could not be released. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. 4. The purpose of keeping the amount in a fixed deposit is for a specific purpose. The Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushamma Thomas and others, 1994 (1) TAC 323, issued certain guidelines to the Claims Tribunal while awarding compensation. The said guidelines are extracted below: “(i) The claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposited at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however, be allowed to be withdrawn. The said guidelines are extracted below: “(i) The claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposited at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however, be allowed to be withdrawn. (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaw, etc. to earn a living the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. (iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out in (i) above unless it is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expending any existing business or for purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii) above for earning his livelihood in which case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. (iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above subject to the realisation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded to him thinks it necessary to so order. (v) In the case of widows the claims Tribunal should invariably follow the procedure set out in (i) above. (vi) In personal injury cases, if further treatment is necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment. (v) In the case of widows the claims Tribunal should invariably follow the procedure set out in (i) above. (vi) In personal injury cases, if further treatment is necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment. (vii) In all cases in which investment in long term fixed deposits is made it should be an condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be. (viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of an emergency. To meet with such a contingency if the amount awarded is substantial the Claims Tribunal may invest it in more than one fixed deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R. can be liquidated.” These guidelines have now been incorporated by the legislature and Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 have been inserted in the Rules. 5. The purpose for keeping the amount in a fixed deposit has been explained by the Supreme Court again in A.V. Padma and others v. R. Venugopal and others, 2012 (1) TAC 740, namely “safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation.” The Supreme Court held : “4. In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to “safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation”. Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court 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 Nos. (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 No. (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. 5. 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. 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. 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. 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. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice. “ The Supreme Court held that these guidelines were issued to keep the amount in a fixed deposit for a period of time was mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. 6. In the instant case, the Court finds that the Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand and has mechanically passed the order without understanding and without appreciating the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court. The guidelines, which have now been incorporated in the Rules was only to safeguard the interest of the claimants particularly the minors and the illiterates. The guidelines were not meant to understood to mean that the Tribunal was supposed to take a rigid stand while considering the application of the petitioner for release of the money. 7. In the instant case, the Court finds that the application was meant for the release of the money so that the petitioner’s daughter could get married. Proof of this fact was also filed, but the Tribunal has failed to understand the need and urgency in the matter and has mechanically passed the order while rejecting the application. There is nothing to show that the petitioner is an illiterate widow. On the other hand, a genuine reason has been given for the release of the balance amount. Consequently, without further adverting on this issue, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for the release of the amount as prayed by her. The Tribunal is directed to release the amount alongwith the interest so accrued immediately upon the receipt of the certified copy of this order. —————