Mahindero vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Iqbal Singh, J.

The petitioner was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,04,000/ by award dated 12.8.1994. After the amount was deposited before the Tribunal, the petitioner made an application for refund of the amount as she wanted to start the industry. The Tribunal released her Rs. 5,000/ for her use and ordered that the remaining amount be deposited in Union Bank of India, G.T. Road, Karnal, in the shape of Fixed Deposit Receipts with the condition that no loan or advance would be permissible against the Fixed Deposit Receipts. Hence this revision petition.

Guidelines have been issued from time to time regarding utilisation of money arising out of grant of compensation in cases under the Motor Vehicles Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Suraj Bhan v. Satpal Singh and others, 1997(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 116 : (19973) 117 P.L.R 78, relying upon the same principles as laid down in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others, (19942) 107 P.L.R. 1 (S.C), indicated a few broad guidelines which are as under :

"(i) The Claims Tribunals should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of 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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may, however, be allowed to be withdrawn;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.

(iii) In the case of semiliterate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless it 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 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 relaxation 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 on 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."

The authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported asDurga Devi v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, 1996(3) Recent Civil Reports (Civil) 234 does not help him in view of the D.B. decision of this Court in Suraj Bhan''s case (supra) and guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas''s case (supra). Moreover, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal observed that on queries put by the Tribunal, the petitioner stated that she has not studied in school nor she has any experience of any type and, resultantly, found that the amount could not be refunded to her; and rightly so. There is every possibility of misutilisation of the amount sought to be got refunded by the petitioner. It is not possible to hold that the petitioner being an illiterate lady without having any experience of any type, will be able to manage and start any industry. However, in case she needs more money for her livelihood, she may apply to the Tribunal again, who, after having satisfied regarding her prayer so made, may grant further amount to her.

Consequently, I find no merit in this revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed.