Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1671 (ALL)

Arun Kumar Srivastava v. Raisul Hasan

2019-07-12

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 2.4.2019 passed by Additional District Judge in Civil Misc. Case No. 1/2019 arising out of Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 158/2015. By the impugned order, the Court below (MACT) has accepted the application of the petitioners for release of the amount awarded in their favour in MACP No. 158/2015 in part. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that a claim petition was filed by the petitioners along with Satyanshu Srivastava for award of compensation on account of death of Beena Srivastava in an accident. Beena Srivastava was wife of petitioner No. 1 and mother of petitioner No. 2. The claim petition was allowed by award dated 25.4.2018 and an amount of Rs. 77,87,032/- along with 7% interest was awarded in favour of the petitioners. Out of the said amount, petitioner No. 1 was held entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- while the remaining amount was to be paid to petitioner No. 2. There was a further direction that out of Rs. 25,00,000/- to be paid to petitioner No. 1, Rs. 23,00,000/- would be invested in a long term fixed deposit of five years in a Nationalised Bank, while the remaining sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- only will be paid to him. Likewise, in case of petitioner No. 2, the direction was for investing Rs. 50,00,000/- in a long term fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank for five years and for payment of balance amount of Rs. 2,87,032/- plus interest to? her. The appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed on 7.9.2018. The amount payable under the award had since been deposited with the tribunal. 3. The petitioners filed separate applications for release of the amount directed to be invested in FDR for reasons disclosed in their applications. The applications filed by the petitioners, as noted above, were allowed in part. In respect of petitioner No. 1 only Rs. 2,00,000/- was permitted to be withdrawn while the remaining amount was directed to be invested in fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank for five years, as was the direction under the award dated 25.4.2018. In respect of petitioner No. 2 also, a direction was given in terms of the award for investing Rs. 2,00,000/- was permitted to be withdrawn while the remaining amount was directed to be invested in fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank for five years, as was the direction under the award dated 25.4.2018. In respect of petitioner No. 2 also, a direction was given in terms of the award for investing Rs. 50,00,000/- in FDR for a period of five years and for release of only the remaining amount with interest, which on the date of passing of the impugned order was a sum of Rs. 14,56,641/-. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners in their application have stated that both of them are highly educated. The petitioner No. 1 had retired from the post of Head of Department (Psychology) from Dayanand Vedic College. Petitioner No. 2 is M.B.A. in International Business and claimed that she is competent to take care of her interest. In their applications, the petitioners have stated that they had taken loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- from Axis Bank, Delhi in the year 2017 at the time of marriage of petitioner No. 2 and the said loan is to be repaid. The EMI of the said loan is Rs. 66,000/- per month. It is further stated that petitioner No. 1 had taken another loan of Rs. 7,80,886/- from Punjab National Bank, Orai under which only a sum of Rs. 15,92,177/- had been repaid. They had prayed for release of the compensation amount to enable them to repay the loans. It is also stated in the application of petitioner No. 2 that after repayment of loan, if any amount is left, she would purchase a house in Delhi. 5. The tribunal without applying its mind to the case set-up by the petitioners in their respective applications passed the impugned order. 6. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is manifestly illegal. The tribunal has not taken into consideration the case set-up by the petitioners for release of compensation amount in their favour. It is urged that the petitioners are both major and are highly qualified. They are in urgent need of money to repay the loan amount. Consequently, there was no justification on part of the tribunal not to allow the applications in toto. It is urged that the petitioners are both major and are highly qualified. They are in urgent need of money to repay the loan amount. Consequently, there was no justification on part of the tribunal not to allow the applications in toto. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in A.V. Padma and others Versus R.Venugopal and others, (2012) 3 SCC 378 . 7. It is noteworthy that the Courts while awarding compensation in motor accident cases started imposing condition for investment of certain amount of compensation in FDRs in order to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Versus Susamma Thomas and others, (1994) AIR SC 1631. In A.V. Padma (supra), the Supreme Court in context of literate claimants, after considering the guidelines laid down in Susamma Thomas, has observed thus : - "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. 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. 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. 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." 8. It is clear from the above enunciation of law by the Supreme Court that in case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to direct investment of compensation amount in long term fixed deposit. The Tribunal has to deal with each case on its own facts. It cannot impose condition for investment of the compensation amount in Fixed Deposit of Nationalised Bank in a mechanical manner in each and every case being decided by it. The Tribunal has to deal with each case on its own facts. It cannot impose condition for investment of the compensation amount in Fixed Deposit of Nationalised Bank in a mechanical manner in each and every case being decided by it. In the case under consideration by the Supreme Court (A V Padma), the Supreme Court found that the first claimant was an educated lady who retired as Superintendent of the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and the second claimant was a M.Sc. degree holder and the third claimant was also holding Master Degree in Commerce and Philosophy. One of the claimant was 71 years of age. She required money for maintenance of her house and for raising further constructions to provide dwelling place for her second daughter. The daughter was residing in a rented house and paying exorbitant rent. The Supreme Court held that the claimants were entitled to withdraw the entire amount and issued directions accordingly. 9. In the instant case, as noted above, both the petitioners are highly qualified. They have filed documentary evidence to prove that they had taken two loans, one of a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- and another of Rs. 7,80,886/-. A major portion of loan amount is still to be paid and they want to liquidate the loan from the compensation amount. From the remaining amount, they would purchase a house in Delhi. The tribunal without considering these facts, in a mechanical manner, permitted release of only the amount as directed under the main award. In the circumstance of the instant case, I am unable to uphold the impugned order as I am satisfied that this is a fit case where there is no apprehension of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance or illiteracy or any such reason. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside. The applications filed by the petitioners for release of entire amount in their favour is allowed. 10. The Tribunal shall encash the Fixed Deposit Receipts and shall release the maturity amount along with interest, if any, in favour of the petitioners, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. The petition is allowed accordingly.