Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 773 (PAT)

Saliman Khatoon v. State Of Bihar

2013-07-08

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2013
ORAL ORDER The writ application of the petitioners is directed against the order, dated 21.08.2004, passed by the Presiding Officer of Claims Tribunal, Saran at Chapra in Claim Case No. 42 of 1992. 2. Facts are not in dispute that the son of the petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2, who was of a young tender age of only 20 odd years, died in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving. Claim for compensation was accepted by the Claims Tribunal and the same was quantified at Rs. 4,55,000/- (four lacs and fifty five thousand) plus Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) only, which was paid as ad interim compensation. 3. The order of the Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal in the main claim case was rendered on 16.07.2002. Almost two years thereafter the order under challenge came to be passed, where a direction was issued to deposit the money of compensation with a bank for 10 years in fixed deposit with right of the claimants to claim only interest component arising therefrom. 4. Stand of the petitioner is that what has been done by the Claims Tribunal is what has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent decision, taking into consideration the time tested decision in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, reported in 1994 SC 1631. 5. For the benefit of all such Presiding Officers who are heading such tribunals, the Court would like to remind them of what the Hon'ble Apex Court had to say in the case of A. V. Padma Vrs. R. Venupogal, reported in 2012 (2) PLJR 61 (SC), especially in paragraph 4 and 5, which are reproduced herein below:- “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 lump sum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lump sum 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. 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. 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 semiliterate 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 of 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 interest 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 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. (emphasis mine)” 6. This Court cannot place the case of the petitioner any higher than the parameters which have been talked about above which are directions to the Presiding Officers while passing such orders. To re-quote from the said passage of paragraph 5, the Court has said “Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice.” 7. The accident happened way back in the year 1992. The claim case came to be decided after almost one decade of litigation on 16.07.2002. A reading of the background and the status of the claimants does not indicate that they were very well off in the society. In fact they were dependant on the bread-earner, who lost his life in the accident. Running households these days is not an easy job for any person, much less an old fragile mother or a widow, especially if she has children to take care. 8. In terms of the order, dated 21.08.2004 the period for fixed deposit was fixed for 10 years. In other words the money would mature some time in August 2014. If the ratio of the decisions and directives of the Hon'ble Apex Court is taken into consideration in the recent case of A. V. Padma (supra) then obviously it is also one of those cases where the directive and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court has not been followed in letter and spirit. 9. The writ application is allowed. A direction is issued upon the Presiding Officer to pass an order for release of money in question forthwith, if an application in this regard is filed by the petitioner before him. 10. 9. The writ application is allowed. A direction is issued upon the Presiding Officer to pass an order for release of money in question forthwith, if an application in this regard is filed by the petitioner before him. 10. The Court below must ensure that the decision on the petition of the petitioners is not dragged on till August, 2014. There will be some urgency in carrying out the direction of this Court within a reasonable time-frame preferably within eight weeks from the date of filing of application with a copy of this Order.