Smt. Manju Devi And 2 Others vs Motor Accident Claims ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2316 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 58
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4714 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Manju Devi And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge Muzaffar Nagar
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners alongwith one Smt. Vedvati made a claim for grant of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 on account of death of Dharmendra Mohan in a motor accident. The petition was registered as claim petition no. 401 of 2011. Dharmendra Mohan, who died in a road accident, was the husband of petitioner no.1, father of petitioners no.2 and 3 and son of Smt. Vedvati. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by an award dated 31.10.2012 allowed the claim petition in part and directed for payment of compensation of Rs.3,19,000/- to the claimant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, since 19.4.2011, the date on which the claim petition was filed. The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal further provides that petitioner no.1 would become entitled to half of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the remaining claimants would each get 1/6 of the total amount. A further direction was issued that the amount coming to the share of the petitioner no.1 and Smt.Vedvati would be released only to the extent of half of the amount and the remaining amount would be invested in a fixed deposit of a nationalised bank for a period of three years. In respect of petitioners no. 2 and 3, there was a specific direction for payment of entire amount coming to their share by means of a crossed cheque.

3. In compliance of the award, it is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- was deposited in Indian Bank by a cheque dated 5/2/2014. The Tribunal by order dated 9.4.2014 directed the bank to apportion the amount deposited in favour of the claimants in the following manner :-

half of the amount alongwith interest to be deposited in favour of the petitioner no.1, 1/6 each in favour of petitioner no.2 and 3 and the remaining 1/6 in favour of Smt. Vedvati. A further direction was issued to the bank that half of the amount coming to the share of each of the claimant would be paid to them and remaining half would be deposited in fixed deposit for a period of three years.

4. Evidently, the direction issued by the Tribunal for payment of only half of the amount coming to the share of petitioner no. 2 and 3 and for deposit of remaining half in a fixed deposit was contrary to the direction given in the award dated 31.10.2012, whereunder the entire amount coming to their share was to be paid by means of a cheque.

5. The petitioners moved an application dated 11.2.2014 with a request to the Tribunal to permit premature encashment of fixed deposit receipts. It was stated in the application that the deceased Dharmendra Mohan had taken loan from the bank under KSY scheme and to liquidate the debt, a sum of Rs.59,339/- was to be paid. Alongwith the application, various notices issued by the Allahabad Bank calling upon the petitioners to deposit the remaining amount due and payable under KSY scheme, failing which legal action would be taken against them, were duly filed. The first notice dated 29.4.2014 calls upon petitioner no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.59,339/-, the second notice dated 29.4.2014 requires petitioner no.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 37,611/-, notices of even date requires petitioner nos. 3 and 4 to deposit Rs.57,960/- and Rs.37,386/- respectively.

6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by impugned order dated 22.4.2014 rejected the application filed by the petitioners for premature encashment of the fixed deposit receipts. The Tribunal has held that it appears from the notice that the aforesaid loan was taken by them in the year 2012 whereas, under the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, sufficient amount was paid to them on 9.4.2014. As such, they could have appropriated the said amount towards payment of the loan liability but it seems that the same was not done and thus the application is merely a ploy employed by the claimant to withdraw the money.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is manifestly illegal and contrary to the guidelines, laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs Susamma Thomas2. It is further urged that the Tribunal has failed to apply its mind to the genuine need of money on part of the petitioners to liquidate the loan liability. The Tribunal, it is urged, has failed to take into consideration the fact that the only person in the family who was earning, had expired and therefore, certain amount was also required for daily expenses and thus, it cannot be said that the application filed by them was a ploy to get the fixed deposit receipts encashed prematurely.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) has issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation". However, even according to the guidelines given in the said judgment, the Tribunal is required to apply its mind to the need of the claimants. It has been held in the said decision that in case the money is required for expending any existing business or for purchase of property for earning the livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole amount of compensation to the claimant.

9. The directions given by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision have since been incorporated by carrying out amendment in the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 2008, by inserting section 220-B, relevant extract whereof is as under :-

"(i).The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits 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;

(v). In the case of widows the Claims Tribunal should invariably follow the procedure set out in (i) above;

(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."

Thus, once the application for withdrawal of money is filed by the claimants, the Tribunal has to apply its mind whether it would be in the interest of the widow, or illiterate, or minor claimants to release the amount or not. While taking decision in that regard, the Tribunal has to approach the problem from the view point of the claimants.

10. In the instant case,the first thing which the Tribunal failed to notice is that in the original award, direction was for payment of entire compensation coming to the share of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 directly to them by means of a crossed cheque. No part of the amount coming to their share was to be deposited in fixed deposit. However, contrary to the direction in the award dated 31.10.2012, the Tribunal vide its order dated 9.4.2014 required the bank to invest 50% of the amount coming to their shares in fixed deposit. Thus, the direction for deposit of 50% of the amount coming to the share of petitioner no.2 and 3 being contrary to the directions given in the award dated 31.10.2012, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

11. As regard the shares of petitioner no. 1, it is noticeable that there are two demand notices brought on record by her. The first notice dated 29.4.2014 by Allahabad Bank requires her to pay a sum of Rs.59,339/- as the amount due and payable towards loan taken by her late husband Dhamendra Mohan. The second notice of even date refers a loan taken by her on 22.10.2012, wherein she is required to pay Rs.37,611/- alongwith interest. Thus, there was sufficient material before the Tribunal to establish that the claimants were indebted to the bank and were in need of money.

12. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioners stating that a sum of Rs.88,000/- was paid to petitioner no.1 and an equal amount was deposited in fixed deposit in her name. It is not in dispute that Dharmendra Mohan, the bread earner for the family had died. In such situation, it should have been visualised by the Tribunal that there are several other liabilities apart from daily expenses which the claimants were to meet. In such view of the matter, the request for release of additional sum which is in fixed deposit cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary or a mere ruse to withdraw the amount. The Tribunal while deciding the application has approached the controversy in a lopsided manner, without appreciating the view point of the claimants.

13. In the case of A. V. Padma and others vs. R. Venugopal and others3, the Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of money deposited in fixed deposit in favour of widow to enable her to provide a dwelling unit to her second daughter who is co-owner in the house, but was residing in a rented accommodation on exorbitant rent. It is held that the widow was obliged to provide shelter to her daughter, and if the money remains locked in fixed deposit, it would only yield paltry interest, whereas, the daughter would be compelled to pay exorbitance rent. It was held that the decision of the Tribunal to invest the amount in fixed deposit was a result of rigid and mechanical approach. The decision fully supports the case of the petitioner herein.

14. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.4.2012 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioners paper no. 13-Ga shall stand allowed. The tribunal shall permit premature encashment of the FDR in favour of the petitioners, leaving alone the FDRs in the name of Smt. Vedvati, for which no request for premature encashment was made.

15. The Tribunal shall ensure that compliance of this order is made within a period of three weeks from date of production of certified copy of this order, by the petitioners, before the Tribunal.

16. The petition stands allowed accordingly.

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 15.9.2015

skv