Urmila Devi vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Paramjeet Singh, J.

CM No. 16083 C-II of 2013

Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P-3 is taken on record.

CR No. 1843 of 2013

Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short "the Tribunal") whereby application moved by the petitioner for release of claim amount deposited in FDR No. 1601668 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. Vide the said award, the share of petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,21,912/- was ordered to be deposited in a bank which was subsequently deposited vide FDR No. 1601668 dated 29.03.2012 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mini Secretariat, Karnal. The petitioner moved an application for release of the same. Instead of releasing the entire amount, the Tribunal 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 a 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 their up-bringing money is always required by the petitioner. She is to run all the household activities and is in the dire need of the money.

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 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, 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 petitioner and her family specially when in the present day the prices are high. The money deposited in the bank would benefit the bank. The 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. It is pertinent to mention that the amount of the share of the minors already stands deposited in the FDR in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, the instant revision is allowed, impugned order dated 21.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the prayer made in the application of the petitioner for release of amount of her share invested in the FDR stands allowed.