Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3093 (ALL)

SUDHA v. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL/D. J. ETAH

2014-10-09

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners has challenged the impugned order dated 24.3.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Etah.in Misc. Case No. 18 of 2014 in M.A.C.P. No. 14 of 2012 (Smt. Sudha and another v. Kamrujjama and others). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners has filed the Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 14 of 2012 (Smt. Sudha and another’s v. Kamrujjama and others) for compensation of the death of her husband Subodh Kumar who died on account of injuries sustained in the accident, which was occurred on 13.12.2011. 4. The award was passed on 17.10.2013 and compensation of Rs. 3,99,000/- alongwith 7% per annum interest was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is admitted position that entire amount of the award was deposited by the Insurance Company. As per the directions given in the award, Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in fixed deposit scheme in the name of petitioner No. 2, Rishav Kumar Minor son of late Subodh Kumar and Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited in fixed deposit in the name of petitioner No. 1, Smt. Sudha wife of late Subodh Kumar and remaining amount of the award of Rs. 1,49,000/- was released in favour of petitioner No. 1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at present petitioners is suffering great hardship due to dilapidated position of her house. She had moved Misc. Application No. 18 of 2014 before the respondent No. 1 to release of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was kept in fixed deposit scheme, so that she may construct boundary wall and plastered of her house, but said application has been rejected by the respondent No. 1 and same was assailed by means of present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied the judgment passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36701 of 2013 (Smt. Farmoodi v. Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Muzaffarnagar and others), 2014 (1) TAC 630 (All). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below : “5. The purpose of keeping the amount in a fixed deposit is for a specific purpose. Writ Petition No. 36701 of 2013 (Smt. Farmoodi v. Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Muzaffarnagar and others), 2014 (1) TAC 630 (All). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below : “5. 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. (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 realization 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. (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.” 6. 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. 9. 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.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case, in view of the above, this Court finds that the Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand and had 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. In the instant case the Court finds that the application was meant for the release of the money so that the petitioner’s can get her house repair by making boundary wall and plaster, but the Tribunal has failed to understand the need and urgency in the matter and has mechanically passed the order while rejecting the application. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is a literate widow. On the other hand, a genuine reason has been given for the release of the balance amount. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is a literate 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. 10. The writ petition is allowed. 11. 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. —————