Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 771 (HP)

Dixit Chauhan v. Jagdish Thakur

2015-06-26

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
Judgment : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral). This is an unfortunate case where the petitioner has been dragged to an otherwise avoidable litigation. 2. The award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla in favour of the petitioner had admittedly attained finality, but when the Tribunal got down to releasing the amount, it only released 25% of the share of the claimant/petitioner constraining him to approach this Court challenging therein the order so passed by the learned Tribunal on 31.3.2015. 3. No doubt, the Tribunals are entrusted with a duty to safeguard the interest of the claimants, more particularly, when they happen to be minors, illiterate claimants or widows. But then it is not in every case, more particularly, in the decided cases that the Tribunal is to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long-term fixed deposit. Similar fact was noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V. Padma and others vs. R. Venugopal and others (2012) 3 SCC 378 , which constrained it to pass the following orders: “6. 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. 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. 7. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. 7. 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. 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 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. 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.” 4. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Tribunal below reads thus: “……I have perused the award passed by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the application is allowed and out of the awarded amount 25% of the share of applicant No.2 Dixit Chauhan alongwith interest accrued thereon be released in his favour by remitting the same in his bank account against proper receipt and identification…” 5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and out of the awarded amount 25% of the share of applicant No.2 Dixit Chauhan alongwith interest accrued thereon be released in his favour by remitting the same in his bank account against proper receipt and identification…” 5. As is evident from the aforesaid order, there is no reason whatsoever given by the learned Tribunal as to why an amount to the extent of 25% of the share is being released. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the guidelines issued by the Court were only to safeguard the interest of the claimants, particularly, 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 the application for release of money. 6. Having said so, the case of the petitioner does not fall in the categories of the claimants identified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court whose amounts are to be kept in long term deposits. The petitioner admittedly is not a minor and as per the affidavit, his age is 30 years, therefore, there is no reason why the entire amount falling to his share should not have been ordered to be released in his favour. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is merit in this petition and the same is allowed and the order passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla in CMP No. 26-S/6 of 2014/11 dated 31.3.2015 is ordered to be set-aside and the entire amount falling to the share of the petitioner/claimant is ordered to be released in his favour by remitting the same to his bank account against proper receipt and identification. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.