Baby vs Motor Accident Claim Tribunal

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned

order dated 21.01.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the ""Tribunal""),

whereby application moved by the petitioner for release of awarded amount deposited in FDR No. 1601672 dated 29.03.2012 of Rs. 1,21,912/-

in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mini Secretariat, Karnal, has been partly allowed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of

the present petition are to the effect that vide award dated 5.10.2011, the petitioner along with others was awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.

6,21,912/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Vide the said award, a cheque of Rs.

1,35,965/- was issued in favour of the petitioner on 26.03.2012 out of which a sum of Rs. 1,21,912/- was ordered to be deposited in FDR in her

name for a period of three years and the remaining amount was ordered to be paid in cash to the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application

for release of FDR amount. Instead of releasing the entire amount, the Tribunal has allowed withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/- out of the amount

deposited in the said FDR. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is major and knows about the welfare of her family. The learned

counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has three school going minor children and for their study and up-bringing money is required by the

petitioner.

I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It may be noted here that in case General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and

others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has issued certain guidelines in order to ""safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries

[due] to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation"".

Thereafter, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has considered the observations made in Susamma Thomas (supra) in case A.V. Padma and Others

Vs. R. Venugopal and Others, and has observed as under:

The expression used in guideline (iv) issued by this Court in Susamma Thomas case 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 (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 (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.

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. 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.

In view of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner needs money for upbringing and education of the

minor children besides daily household expenses, the release of paltry amount would not serve the purpose of the petitioner and her family,

specially when in the present day the prices are high. The money deposited in the bank would rather benefit the bank. The fact of increasing cost of

living cannot be lost sight. Non-release or delayed release of compensation amount will expose the petitioner to serious prejudice and economic

ruining. In these circumstances, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent which is Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, present petition is

disposed of with a direction to the concerned Bank Manager to release the half amount of FDR No. 1601672 dated 29.03.2012 in favour of the

petitioner against proper receipt and identification.