Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 594 (ALL)

Aidal Singh v. State of U. P.

2024-02-26

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

body2024
JUDGMENT : MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 05.06.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar in Misc. Case No. 545 of 2023 and 555 of 2023 directing for part release of the compensation awarded in claim petition i.e. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 468 of 2015 and directing the remaining amount to be invested in a Fixed Deposit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that one Ganpat Singh son of Aidal Singh died in a road accident on 19.08.2015 at about 08:00 P.M. involving fortuner Car No. UP-81-CB 7686. Claim petition No. 468 of 2015 was filed by the claimants i.e. parents of the deceased Ganpat Singh along with two unmarried sisters and one brother of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The aforesaid claim petition was allowed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Bulandshahar vide its award dated 24.10.2017. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,39,000/- to be paid by the Insurance Company along with an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the application. The claimant nos. 3, 4 & 5 who were sisters and brother of the deceased Ganpat Singh were held not entitled for compensation by the tribunal as they were not dependent upon the deceased Ganpat Singh. Parents of the deceased Ganpat Singh i.e. claimant nos. 1 & 2 were given compensation in equal shares. The tribunal vide award dated 24.10.2017 directed for a payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to each of the claimants i.e. claimant nos. 1 & 2 and directed that the remaining amount shall be deposited in a nationalized bank having maximum interest. 4. The claimants filed First Appeal From Order No. 264 of 2018 (Premwati and Others vs. Ikbal and Others) before the High Court challenging the judgment and award dated 24.10.2017 and has also claimed the enhancement of compensation. The aforesaid F.A.F.O. was allowed in part by this Court by judgment dated 22.02.2022. The High Court awarded the compensation of Rs. 23,65,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 5. The aforesaid F.A.F.O. was allowed in part by this Court by judgment dated 22.02.2022. The High Court awarded the compensation of Rs. 23,65,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 5. The Insurance Company in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 264 of 2018, deposited the entire amount before the Claims Tribunal. 6. The petitioner no. 1, Aidal Singh moved an application on 03.05.2023 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for payment of F.D.R. No. 961094 of Rs. 2,97,300/- dated 24.02.2023 along with interest to the petitioner no. 1 on the ground that the marriage of his daughter is to be held on 11.06.2023. The aforesaid application was registered as Misc. Case No. 555 of 2023. A similar application was also moved by the petitioner no. 2 regarding F.D.R. No. 961093 of Rs. 2,97,300/- dated 24.02.2023 on the ground of settlement of marriage of her daughter Km. Vimlesh. The aforesaid application was registered as Misc. Case No. 554 of 2023. In support of their claim, the petitioners also annexed the marriage card. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar by its two separate orders dated 05.06.2023 in Misc. Case No. 554 of 2023 & 555 of 2023 directed for release of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of each of the claimant/petitioner and has further directed that the remaining amount shall be reinvested in a new Fixed Deposit. Being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tribunal has erred in law in not releasing the amount of F.D.R. in favour of the claimants/petitioners and the direction for further deposit of the remaining amount in Fixed Deposit is wholly arbitrary. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of the petitioner Ganpat Singh died in the year 2015 and at that time the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 were 49 years old and now they are aged about 57 years having two unmarried daughters and one son. The application for withdrawal was moved for meeting out the expenses likely to be incurred in the marriage of their daughter Km. Vimlesh. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 & 2 were 49 years old and now they are aged about 57 years having two unmarried daughters and one son. The application for withdrawal was moved for meeting out the expenses likely to be incurred in the marriage of their daughter Km. Vimlesh. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 contended that the orders passed by the Tribunal are perfectly just and are also in consonance with the law as laid down by the Apex Court in case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sushamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (1) TAC 323 as well as Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Runna vs. Vth Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gorakhpur (1999) 2 ACC 268, judgment of Kerala High Court in Case of Zainba vs. M.A.C.T. (1999) 2 ACC 567 and Sudha Agnihotri vs. M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Agra and Others, 2005 Law Suit (All) 2165. 11. Before considering the rival submissions and the law relied upon by the respective parties, it would be useful to refer the statutory provisions as contained in U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998. The relevant rule is Rule 220-B which is quoted as under: “220-B. Securing the interest of Claimants: (1) Where any lump-sum amount of compensation, deposited with the Claims Tribunal is payable to a woman or a person under legal disability/ such sum may be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with for the benefit of the woman or such person during his disability in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct to be paid to any dependent of the injured or heirs of the deceased or to any other person whom the Claims Tribunal thinks best fitted to provide for the welfare of the injured or the heir of the deceased. (2) Where an application made to the Claims Tribunal in this behalf otherwise, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that on account of neglect of the children on the part of the parents, or on account of the variation of the circumstances of any dependent, or for any other sufficient cause, an order of the Claims Tribunal as to the distribution of any sum paid as compensation or as to the manner in which any sum payable to any such dependent is to be invested applied or otherwise dealt with, ought to be varied, the Claims Tribunal may make such further orders for the variation of the former order as it thinks just in the circumstances of the case. (3) The Claims Tribunal shall, in the case of minor, order that amount of compensation awarded to such minor be invested in fixed deposits till such minor attains majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or the next friend may be allowed to be withdrawn by such guardian or the next friend from such deposits before it is deposited : Provided that the interest payable on such deposits may be allowed to be utilized for education, maintenance and development of the minor with the permission of the Claims Tribunal. (4) The Claims Tribunal shall, in the case of illiterate claimants, order that the amount of compensation awarded be invested in fixed deposits for a minimum period of three years, but if any amount is required for effecting purchase of any movable or immovable property for improving the income of the claimant, the Claims Tribunal may consider such a request after being satisfied that the amount would be actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. (5) The Claims Tribunal shall, in the case of semi-literate person resort to the procedure for the deposit or award amounts set out in sub-rule (4) unless if is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for the expansion of any existing business or for the purchase of some property as specified and mentioned, in sub-rule (4) in which case the Claims Tribunal shall ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is prayed for and paid. (6) The Claims Tribunal may in the case of literate persons also resort to the procedure for deposit of awarded amount specified in sub-rules (4) and (5) if having regard to the age, fiscal background and state of society to which the claimant belongs and such other consideration/ the Claims Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, thinks it necessary to order. (7) The Claims Tribunal, may in personal injury cases, if further treatment is necessary, on being satisfied which shall be recorded in writing, permit the withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for the expenses of such treatment. (8) The Claims Tribunal may, in the matter of investment of money, have regard to maximum return by ways of periodical income to the claimant, deposit with public sector undertaking of the State or Central Government which offers higher rate of interest. (9) The Claims Tribunal shall, in investing money, direct that the interest on the deposits be paid directly to the claimants or the guardian of the minor claimants by the institution holding the deposits under intimation to the Claims Tribunal.” 12. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sushamma Thomas (Supra), the Supreme 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. 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. 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. (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.” 13. These guidelines have now been incorporated by the legislature and the Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 have been inserted in the rules. 14. These guidelines have now been incorporated by the legislature and the Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 have been inserted in the rules. 14. In case of Runna vs. Vth Additional District Judge (Supra), this Court held that there is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and hence it is for her to decide what to do with money which has been awarded, and set-aside the order dated 16.05.1996 and directed that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- alongwith interest which may have accrued thereupon be paid to the petitioner forthwith. (Para-2) 15. In case of Zainba vs. M.A.C.T. (Supra), the money was directed to be deposited in Fixed Deposit by the Tribunal. After the Fixed Deposit matured, the petitioner moved an application for release of the said amount in order to meet the expenses of the marriage of her grand daughter. According to the petitioner her daughter is a divorcee and she require the money for their livelihood. The application was rejected by the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal was not satisfied that the need is genuine. The Kerala High Court held that since five years have already over and the petitioner is a widow lady and she is claiming only her share, there is no reason to reject her application for release of her share. 16. In case of Sudha Agnihotri vs. M.A.C.T. (supra), this Court has held in paragraph no. 4 as under: “4. After respective arguments have been advanced undisputed position is that husband of the petitioner met with an accident and died. Claim petition of the petitioner and two others was allowed and as far as petitioner is concerned one lac of rupees was awarded to her out of which a sum of Rs. 20,000 has been paid and remaining eighty thousand has been invested in the fixed deposit. Award in question does not disclose as to in what way and manner said amount in question was to be paid: it merely mentioned that from the date of order aforesaid amount in question be paid with 8% simple interest. Petitioner is major and educated lady and has done beautician course from Mahila Training Centre, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur and she intends to settle herself, for which she has taken decision for opening a beauty parlour for which she needs funds. Petitioner is major and educated lady and has done beautician course from Mahila Training Centre, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur and she intends to settle herself, for which she has taken decision for opening a beauty parlour for which she needs funds. Apart from rupees eighty thousand she has got she has no other source of income. Petitioner intends to establish herself independently for which she has taken decision for opening beauty parlour. Petitioner is major and fully competent and capable to decide her future and as such withdrawal of the amount must be left at her will and as such at this staeg when petitioner took decision to start business for herself, it would be totally unfair to retain the said amount in the Nationalized Bank, in case petitioner would have been illiterate lady and could not understand her interest then position would have been different but here petitioner is well educated lady and understands her future.” 17. The judgment in case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sushamma Thomas (Supra) was considered and explained by the Apex Court in case of A.V. Padma and Others vs. R. Venugopal and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 378 , wherein the Apex Court has held in Para Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 as under: “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 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. 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 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. 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.” 18. From the law as laid down by the Apex Court it is clear that the guidelines were issued to keep the amount in a Fixed Deposit for a period of time only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widow. 19. 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. 19. 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. In the present case, the claimants/petitioners lost their son in the year 2015 and at that time the petitioners/claimants were aged about 49 years and when they moved the application for release of the amount in June, 2023, they were aged about 57 years and have responsibility of three children of marriageable age. The award was passed in the year 2017 and the money was invested in Fixed Deposit. 20. The guidelines has been issued in case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sushamma Thomas (Supra) which have now been incorporated in the Rules was only to safeguard the interest of the claimants particularly the minors and the illiterate. These guidelines were not meant to understood to mean that the tribunal was suppose to take a rigid stand while considering the application of the petitioners for the release of money. 21. In the present case, the application was filed for release of the money so that the petitioners’ daughter could get married. Proof of this fact was also filed before the tribunal but the tribunal has failed to understand the urgency in the matter and has mechanically passed the orders. There is nothing to show that the petitioners are illiterate on the other hand a genuine reason has been given by the petitioner for release of the balance amount. 22. Considering the facts of this case that the claimants are now aged about 57 years having responsibility of two daughters and one son and particularly that the award was passed in the year 2017 of an accident which has taken place in the year 2015, there is no reason to not allow the application of the petitioners in its entirety. 23. The Court is of the opinion that the direction for further investment in Fixed Deposit as contained in the order impugned cannot be sustained and therefore, the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 is hereby quashed to the extent its directs for depositing the remaining amount in Fixed Deposit. 24. The writ petition is allowed. 25. The petitioners are entitled for the release of amount as prayed by them. 24. The writ petition is allowed. 25. The petitioners are entitled for the release of amount as prayed by them. The tribunal is directed to release the amount and the interest accrued immediately upon receipt of the certified copy of this order.