Jilsad Alias Dilsad @APPELLANT@Hash Shaukat

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for premature release of amount of compensation lying in fixed deposit account and

challenged the order dated 07/06/2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge No.1, Deeg, District

Bharatpur in M.A.C. No.117/2016 by which application moved by the petitioner for premature release of the amount of compensation lying in fixed

deposit account has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of A.V. Padma & Ors. Vs. R. Venugopal &

Ors.: MACD 2012 (SC) 25 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-

“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the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds.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. 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.â€​

Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in dire need of money and therefore, he had entered into a compromise in National Lok Adalat to

accept a lower sum of Rs.4,75,000/- in M.A.C. No.117/2016. However, the learned Tribunal has deposited the entire amount of compensation in fixed

deposit account while the petitioner Jilsad alias Dilsad, who is 9 years old child of Haqmuddin, is undergoing regular treatment for which money is

required. He has to undergo heavy expenditures for operations but the amount has not been released.

Taking into consideration the present scenario of the rate of interest as available in fixed deposits and that there are other sources of investment

also available for getting better interest on the amount of compensation awarded, this Court is of the opinion that the guidelines laid down by the Apex

Court are to be taken with the spirit of the change of method of investments as are now prevalent.

Taking note of the aforesaid judgment, this Court finds that the order rejecting the application has not been passed by the learned Tribunal

judiciously. In the present circumstances where a compromise award has been passed, the learned Tribunal cannot be allowed to act in a rigid and

mechanical manner. Appropriate order for proportionment of amount is required to be passed by the Tribunal and at least in cases of injuries where

expenditures have to be incurred in continuous treatment, care and attendance in relation to minors, 60% of the amount of compensation ought to be

released in saving account of the claimant while 40% of the amount of compensation may be kept for future protection by way of depositing in fixed

deposit accounts.

Thus, this Court finds that in cases where the individuals have entered into a compromise with the respondents either before the MACT or any Lok

Adalat, a different yardstick is required to be adopted in relation to depositing of compensation amount in fixed deposits.

Accordingly, in relation to the cases of persons who have attained majority, this Court is of the opinion that the persons who have attained majority

and who are literate and are able to take decision relating to their future, the Tribunal ought not insist on getting the amount deposited in fixed deposits

and it should be left for the concerned claimant to take his own decision relating to the investment of the amount of compensation awarded in the

manner which he may like to do. The Tribunal may, however, fix certain portion of the compensation awarded in fixed deposits up to the extent of

40% in relation to the claimants who are widows and children. This would be in tune with the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of

General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors.: AIR 1994 SC 1631.

Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the learned

Tribunal is directed to release 60% of the amount deposited in Fixed Deposits in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest as has been accrued till

date. Rest of the amount shall remain deposited in Fixed Deposits. No costs.