U.P.S.R.T.C vs Smt. Rakhi Sahu And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3555 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

RESERVED ON 23.02.2022
 
DELIVERED ON 20.05.2022
 
Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 4383 of 2012
 

 
Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C
 
Respondent :- Smt. Rakhi Sahu And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Anand Gaur,Renu Mishra,Sunil Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Om Prakash Chaube,Shrawan Kumar Mishra
 
                                    And
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1482 of 2015
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Rakhi Sahu
 
Respondent :- Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shrawan Kumar Mishra,O.P. Chaube
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Renu Mishra,Sunil Kumar Mishra
 
                                    And
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1232 of 2013
 

 
Appellant :- Smt .Rakhi Shahu And 4 Ors.
 
Respondent :- Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. And 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shrawan Kumar Mishra,O.P. Chaube
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

All the above-mentioned three First Appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, ''Act, 1988') and arise from the same accident which is alleged to have occurred on 7.10.2009. The appeals were connected and have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

The First Appeal From Order No. 4383 of 2012 is taken to be the leading appeal. The appellant in First Appeal From Order No. 4383 of 2012 shall hereinafter be referred as appellant, the opposite party nos. 1 to 5 in First Appeal From Order No. 4383 of 2012 shall hereinafter be referred as claimants. The opposite party no. 6 in First Appeal From Order No. 4383 of 2012 is the owner of motorcycle bearing Registration No. U.P. 93 M-2936 and shall hereinafter be referred as the owner of the bike, opposite party no. 7 in First Appeal From Order No. 4383 of 2012 is the New India Insurance Company Ltd., Sadar Bazar, Jhansi with which the bike was insured and shall hereinafter be referred as the Insurance Company. First Appeal From Order Nos. 4383 of 2012 and 1482 of 2015 arise from the award dated 19.9.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009 while First Appeal From Order No. 1232 of 2013 arises from the award dated 19.9.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009.

Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009 was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi claiming a compensation of Rs.25,25,000/- for the death of Sanjeev Kumar Sahu (hereinafter referred to as, ''deceased') in an accident allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of a Bus bearing Registration No. U.P. 93 E-5692 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the offending vehicle') by its driver. The offending vehicle belonged to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant. It was stated in the claim petition that on 7.10.2009 when the deceased along with his wife - the claimant no. 1, was returning to his home, the offending vehicle hit the bike from the front injuring the deceased and the claimant no. 1. It was alleged that the deceased died on the spot due to the injuries. The incident was stated to have been witnessed, amongst other persons, by Deepak s/o Ram Kishore and Deepak Soni. It was claimed that the deceased owned a shop of electronic goods and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On the aforesaid pleas, the claimants prayed for a compensation of Rs.25,25,000/- from the appellant. A First Information Report regarding the accident was also registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009, the appellants filed their written statement denying the incident and also the involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident. It was stated in the written statement that, on the relevant date, i.e., 7.10.2009, the offending vehicle was being operated on the Jhansi - Garautha route by its driver - Sri Anil Niranjan and its conductor - Sri Ramesh Prasad and the offending vehicle left Garautha at around 5:30 p.m. and reached Jhansi at 9:00 p.m. It was also pleaded by the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence and the claimant no. 1 did not suffer any disability from the injuries allegedly caused to her. It was further alleged in the written statement that the deceased had no experience of driving a bike and did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. On the aforesaid plea, the appellants denied their liability to pay compensation and prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

In the aforesaid case, the owner of the bike and the Insurance Company also filed their written statement. The owner of the bike stated that on the date of accident the bike was insured with the Insurance Company and that the deceased had a valid driving licence D.L. No. 9584/Jhansi/02. The Insurance Company denied the allegations made in the claim petition and pleaded that the claimants had prayed for excessive compensation which they were not entitled to.

In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009, the Tribunal framed five issues. Issue No. 1 was whether the accident which occurred on 7.10.2009 was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Issue No. 2 was whether the accident was because of the composite negligence of the drivers of the bike and the offending vehicle, Issue No. 3 was as to whether the drivers of both the vehicles had valid driving licence, Issue No. 4 was as to whether both the vehicles were insured on the date of accident and Issue No. 5 was as to whether the claimants were entitled to compensation and also the amount of compensation as well as the defendant liable to pay compensation.

Apart from Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009, the claimant no. 1 also instituted Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009 on the same incident for a compensation of Rs.14,75,000/- for the injuries caused to her in the accident alleging mental and physical disabilities because of the injuries. The appellant, the bike owner and the Insurance Company filed their written statement contesting the aforesaid claim of claimant no. 1 and stating the same facts which were stated by them in the written statement filed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009, the Tribunal framed the same five issues as framed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009 except that Issue No. 5 was modified to the extent as to whether the claimant no. 1 had suffered any disability because of the alleged accident entitling her to compensation for the disabilities pleaded by her.

In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009, the claimant no. 1 deposed as P.W. - 1 and Deepak Soni deposed as plaintiff witness no. 2 while Anil Niranjan, the alleged driver of the offending vehicle, deposed as a witness for the appellants. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009, the claimant no. 1, Deepak Soni and one Mannu Lal Soni deposed as P.W. - 1, P.W. - 2 and P.W. - 3 respectively and Anil Niranjan deposed as D.W. - 1 on behalf of the appellants.

The Tribunal decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 relying on the testimony of P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 2, who were eye-witness of the incident and had proved the accident as alleged in the claim petition. In his testimony, D.W. - 1 had denied the incident and the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident but the Tribunal rejected the testimony of Anil Niranjan - D.W. - 1 on the ground that he was an interested witness because a First Information Report had been registered against him regarding the incident and a charge-sheet had been filed against him in the said case. The Tribunal also rejected the plea of composite negligence raised by the appellant. Issue No. 3 was decided against the appellant on the ground that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had not been filed by the appellant and the claimants had filed the driving licence of the deceased. So far as Issue No. 4 is concerned, the appellants did not file any document showing that the offending vehicle was insured with any Insurance Company and, therefore, the said issue was decided against the appellants. However, on the basis of the policy document filed by the owner of the bike, the Tribunal held that the bike was insured with the Insurance Company from 10.6.2009 to 9.6.2010. So far as Issue No. 5 is concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellants were liable to pay compensation to the claimants as the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle killing the deceased and causing injuries to claimant no. 1.

So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal vide its award dated 19.9.2012 awarded Rs.4,41,500/- to the claimants for the death of Sanjeev Kumar Sahu. The Tribunal did not accept the claim that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from his shop and computed the compensation on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker, i.e., Rs.100/- per day or Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal, relying on the High School Certificate of the deceased, held that the deceased was 29 years old and applied a multiplier of 18 while calculating the pecuniary damages payable to the claimants. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 from the notional income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses. Apart from the aforesaid, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- to the claimant no. 1 for loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate.

In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009, the Tribunal in its award dated 19.9.2012 held that the injured claimant no. 1 had not been able to prove any disability caused to her because of the injuries suffered in the accident but awarded Rs.73,000/- as compensation of which Rs.63,000/- was awarded for the medical expenses incurred by her and Rs.10,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering.

First Appeal From Order No. 4383 of 2012 has been filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 19.9.2012 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009 with the prayer that the award be set-aside. First Appeal From Order No. 1232 of 2013 has been filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of compensation awarded in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009. First Appeal From Order No. 1482 of 2015 has been filed by the claimant no. 1 for enhancement of compensation in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009.

It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that the accident as alleged by the claimants had been disproved by the testimony of Anil Niranjan - the driver of the offending vehicle. It was argued that in his testimony, the driver had stated that the offending vehicle had reached Jhansi at 9:00 p.m. after having departed from Garautha at 5:30 p.m. It was argued that the First Information Report regarding the accident was registered after one month and there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the aforesaid First Information Report. It was argued that the delay in filing the First Information Report indicates that the claimants had set up a false case. It was further argued by the counsel for the appellant that there are major inconsistencies between the testimonies of P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 2 regarding the incident and the Tribunal has wrongly relied on the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses while holding that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It was further argued that, in any view of the matter, the accident occurred because of the composite negligence of the drivers of the offending vehicle and the deceased as there was a head-on collision between the offending vehicle and the bike which the deceased was riding. It was argued that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009 is not required to be enhanced as there is no evidence regarding any disability caused to the claimant no. 1 because of the alleged accident. It was argued that for the aforesaid reason, First Appeal From Order No. 4383 of 2012 is to be allowed and the award dated 19.9.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009 is liable to be set-aside and First Appeal From Order Nos. 1232 of 2013 and 1482 of 2015 are liable to be dismissed.

Rebutting the argument of the counsel for the appellant, the counsel for the claimants has argued that the accident as pleaded in the claim petition was proved by the testimony of plaintiff witness nos. 1 and 2, who were eye-witness of the incident. It was argued that there was no evidence of any composite negligence or any contributory negligence by the deceased and merely because there was a head-on collision between the two vehicles would not lead to the inference that there was a composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles in causing the accident. It was argued that the Tribunal has awarded very meager compensation to the claimants which is to be enhanced. It was argued that only 1/4 could have been deducted from the income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses and in its award dated 19.9.2012, the Tribunal has not made any allowance for the future prospects of the deceased. It was argued that the Tribunal has also wrongly computed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day even though the deceased was a trained technician as would be evident from the certificate issued by the Industrial Training Institute to the applicant. It was argued that very low amount has been awarded to the claimants under the conventional heads and the claimant nos. 2 to 5 were also entitled to compensation for loss of consortium which the Tribunal has not awarded. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced. It was further argued that the evidence on record of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009 proved that claimant no. 1 had suffered permanent disability due to the injuries caused to her in the accident and the findings of the Tribunal rejecting the claim on the aforesaid count is contrary to evidence on record. It was further argued that the claimant no. 1 was entitled to higher compensation for medical expenses and for pain and suffering caused to her because of the injuries suffered in the accident. On the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for the claimants have pleaded that First Appeal From Order No. 4383 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed and First Appeal From Order Nos. 1232 of 2013 and 1482 of 2015 are to be allowed.

I have considered the submission of the counsel for the parties.

In her testimony, the claimant no. 1 who testified as plaintiff witness no. 1 has categorically stated that the offending vehicle was being driven negligently and at a very high speed on the wrong side and had hit the bike from the front. In her cross-examination, the plaintiff witness no. 1 has denied the suggestion that her husband was negligently driving the bike. In her testimony, the claimant no. 1 has also proved the place of accident as pleaded in the claim petition, i.e., near Mahadev Petrol Pump. Similarly, the plaintiff witness no. 2 - Deepak Soni, who is also an eye-witness of the accident has stated that the bike was hit on the right side by the offending vehicle. The plaintiff witness no. 2, who had taken the deceased to the hospital, has testified that the bike was on the left side of the road and was being driven carefully by the deceased. The aforesaid witness were cross-examined by the appellant but the appellant could not extract anything from the witness to discredit their testimony.

The appellant produced Anil Niranjan - the alleged driver of the offending vehicle as D.W. - 1. In his testimony, the driver of the vehicle, i.e., D.W. - 2, has reiterated the case of the appellants as narrated above but has pleaded ignorance as to the time when the vehicle reached Mahadev Petrol Pump, i.e., the place where the accident is said to have occurred. In his testimony, D.W. - 1 has stated that on the date of alleged accident, one Ramesh Prasad was accompanying the offending vehicle as its conductor. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the testimony of D.W. - 1 on the ground that he was an interested witness as a charge-sheet had been filed against him in the criminal case registered against him regarding the accident. The Tribunal has also rejected the testimony of D.W. - 1 on the ground that the witness failed to re-collect the time when the offending vehicle crossed Mahadev Petrol Pump, i.e., the place of accident. It is relevant to note that the the appellant had pleaded that on the date of accident, Ramesh Prasad was in the offending vehicle as its conductor. The said fact has also been admitted by the driver of the offending vehicle in his testimony. However, Ramesh Prasad was not produced as a witness by the appellant. The aforesaid leads to the conclusion that the appellant has set-up a false defense only to avoid its liability to pay compensation. The claimants' witness have proved the accident and that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The manner of the accident does not show that there was any composite negligence of the driver of both the vehicles or any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident. There can be no presumption of composite or contributory negligence only on the ground that there was a head on collision between the two vehicles. In view of the aforesaid, the findings of the Tribunal on Issues Nos. 1 and 2 are affirmed and it is held that Sanjeev Kumar Sahu died in the accident that took place on 7.10.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the claimant no. 1 was injured in the aforesaid accident.

So far as Issue Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, the findings of the Tribunal on the said issues have not been seriously contested by the appellant. However, I have also perused the lower court records and the records reveal that the appellant did not file the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle or any insurance policy showing that the offending vehicle was insured with any insurance company. Further, the policy document regarding the bike was filed before the Tribunal which showed that the bike was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. from 10.6.2009 to 9.6.2010 and the deceased had a valid driving licence which was valid from 9.8.2002 to 8.8.2022. The findings of the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 3 and 4 are also affirmed.

So far as Issue No. 5 is concerned, the appellant, i.e., Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was the owner of the offending vehicle which was not insured with any insurance company. The person who was driving the offending vehicle was, on the admission of the appellants themselves, an employee of the appellant. In the circumstances, the appellant, i.e., the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, a perusal of the records show that the date of birth of the deceased was 8.2.1980. The said date of birth is evident from the High School Certificate of the deceased as well as the certificate issued by the State Vocational Training Board. Thus, the deceased was 29 years old at the time of accident.

It was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased owned a shop of electronic goods and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month from the said shop. In support of their claim, the claimants had filed certain receipts showing commercial transactions by the deceased. However, the receipts do not prove that the commercial transactions related to the business of the deceased in as much as the receipts have been issued in the name of Sanjeev Electrical and there is no evidence showing that any shop by the name of Sanjeev Electrical was registered in the name of the deceased. Some of the receipts produced by the claimants to show financial transaction by the deceased have been issued in the name of Maa Tara Electrical. There is no evidence that the deceased had owned any shop. In view of the aforesaid, the plea of the claimants that the deceased owned a shop of electrical goods cannot be accepted. There is no evidence of the income of the deceased and, therefore, the plea of the claimants that the deceased earned Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be accepted.

The Tribunal has calculated compensation on the notional income of Rs.100/- per day, i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased had been issued a certificate by the State Vocational Training Board certifying that he had received the training of ''Turner' by the State Industrial Training Institute, Jhansi from 2001 to 2003 For the said reason, the notional income of the deceased cannot be determined by treating him to be an unskilled worker and the notional income has to be determined on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in 2009. It would be just to determine compensation by taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.200/- per day, i.e., Rs.6,000/- per month.

The deceased was married. The claimant no. 1 is the wife of the deceased, the claimant nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased and the claimant no. 5 is the mother of the deceased. Claimant no. 4 is the father of the deceased. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., 2021 (11) SCC 780, the father of the deceased cannot be considered to be dependent on the deceased as there is no evidence on record to show that the father had no income of his own. Thus, there were four family members who were dependent on the deceased. In accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2009 (6) SCC 121, 1/4 has to be deducted for the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3 as personal and living expenses of the deceased.

The deceased was 29 years old and, therefore, in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), a multiplier of 17 is to be applied while determining the pecuniary damages.

The deceased was self employed and was 29 years old at the time of accident which took place on 7.10.2009 and therefore, in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% is to be added as future prospects in his income. Apart from the aforesaid, the claimants are also entitled to compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses and separate compensations for loss of consortium as determined by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546.

Applying the aforesaid principles, the compensation payable to the claimants is re-computed as below :-

(1) Income of the deceased = Rs.6,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.72,000/- per annum.

(2) 40% addition as future prospects in the income of the deceased = Rs.28,800/-

Thus, total income of the deceased for purposes of compensation = Rs.1,00,800/-

(3) Deductions for the personal and living expenses of the deceased - 1/4 from his income = Rs.25,200/-

Thus, the multiplicand = Rs.75,600/- (Rs.72,000 + Rs.28,800 - Rs.25,200)

(4) Applying a multiplier of 17, Pecuniary Damages = Rs.72,600 x 17 =Rs.12,85,200/-

(5) Compensation under the conventional heads -

(i) Loss of Estate = Rs.15,000/-

(ii) Funeral expenses = Rs.15,000/-

(iii) Loss of Filial Consortium to claimant nos. 4 and 5 who are the parents of the deceased = Rs.40,000 x 2 = Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants)

(iv) Loss of spousal consortium to claimant no. 1 = Rs.40,000/-

(v) Loss of parental consortium to claimant nos. 2 and 3 = Rs.40,000 x 2 = Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 each to the claimants)

Thus, total compensation = Rs.15,15,200/-

Thus, it is held that the total compensation payable to the claimants for the death of Sanjeev Kumar Sahu in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009 is Rs.15,15,200/-

So far as the claim of claimant no. 1 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009 is concerned, a perusal of the records indicates that the claimant no. 1 had not been able to prove any disability caused to her due to the injuries caused in the accident. The medical expenses of Rs.63,000/- were proved by the different receipts produced by the claimant no. 1. The Tribunal has allowed compensation for the aforesaid medical expenses. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the expenses in transporting the claimant no. 1 from Jhansi Medical College to Sahara Hospital, Gwalior which must have also been incurred by the claimant no. 1. Further, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering caused to the claimant no. 1 due to her injuries. The award of the Tribunal so far as payment of medical expenses is concerned, is affirmed. However, it would be just to award the claimant no. 1 Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering caused to her and Rs.10,000/- for the expenses in transporting her from Jhansi Medical College to Sahara Hospital, Gwalior. It is held that in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009, the claimant no. 1 was entitled to compensation of Rs.63,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.98,000/-.

It is evident that the Tribunal has awarded very low compensation to the claimants. The awards dated 19.9.2012 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 664 of 2009 and 663 of 2009 are modified to the extent stated above and it is held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 15,15,200/- in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 664 of 2009 and claimant no. 1 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.98,000/- in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009. The aforesaid amounts shall carry the same interest as awarded by the Tribunal in its awards dated 19.9.2012.

The balance amount / excess amount as awarded by this Court in the present appeals shall be deposited by the appellant - the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi in the Tribunal within four months from today. The compensation for pecuniary damages as computed in the present order along with the interest accruing on the same shall be divided equally amongst claimant nos. 1, 2 and 3. The compensation for loss of spousal consortium and for funeral expenses and for loss of estate along with the interest accruing on the same shall be paid to the claimant no. 1. The compensation for parental consortium along with the interest accruing on the same shall be paid to claimant nos. 2 and 3. The claimant nos. 4 and 5 shall be paid compensation for loss of filial consortium along with the interest accruing on the said amounts. The compensation enhanced in First Appeal From Order Nos. 1482 of 2015 / Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 663 of 2009 shall be paid exclusively to claimant no. 1. The amount so deposited by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi under the present order of this Court shall be deposited by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi in the highest interest bearing fixed deposit schemes, either of the post office or of any nationalized bank. The receipts of the fixed deposit shall be handed over to the claimants entitled to compensations as held above and the receipts of the compensation awarded to claimant nos. 2 and 3 shall also be given to claimant no. 1. The claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the maturity amount when the fixed deposits mature. The maturity amount shall be credited by the bank/post office in any savings account of the claimants. The concerned bank or post office shall not permit any loan or advance against the fixed deposits made in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal, while depositing the amount in any fixed deposit scheme, shall communicate the directions issued by this Court to the concerned bank/post office.

With the aforesaid directions and observations, the First Appeal From Order No. 4383 of 2012 is dismissed and First Appeal From Order Nos. 1482 of 2015 and 1232 of 2013 are allowed. Parties shall bear their own cost.

The office shall transmit the records of the case to the Tribunal, at the earliest.

Order Date :- 20.5.2022

Satyam