Smt. Jag Bai Sahu vs Satyendra Sharma
2022 Latest Caselaw 3206 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                      NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          WP227 No. 221 of 2022

                         Reserved on 27.04.2022
                        Pronounced on 04.05.2022

     1. Smt. Jag Bai Sahu W/o Late Sadhram Sahu Aged About 60 Years
        R/o Village Bhathora, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

     2. Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Late Sadhram Sahu Aged About 35 Years
        R/o Village Bhathora, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
                                                             ---- Petitioners
                                  Versus

     1. Satyendra Sharma S/o Late Sudama Aged About 49 Years R/o
        Sher, Police Station Siha, Balaya, Gopalganj (Uttar Pradesh) At
        Present R/o House No.48, Rani Road Korba, District Korba,
        Chhattisgarh.

     2. Moh. Anis Memon S/o Aziz Memon Aged About 54 Years R/o
        House No. 481, Rani Road Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

     3. National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager,
        Office Meenu Complex, Kosabadi, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
                                                        ---- Respondents

For Petitioners :Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.

For Respondent 3                   :Shri G.V.K.Rao, Advocate.


                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

                          CAV Order / Judgment

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners are questioning the propriety

of the order dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned First

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba in

MACT No. 94/2008, whereby an application moved by the petitioners for

releasing the amount of FDRs has been allowed in part while releasing

Rs.5,00,000/- each only to the petitioners.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that predeceased-in-interest

of the petitioners, namely, Shri Sadhram Sahu died in a motor accident on

21.03.2008 and, in view thereof, the claim petition being MACT No.

94/2008 was filed on 16.04.2008, which was allowed and the

claimants/petitioners were accordingly awarded compensation amount of

Rs.37,35,136/- along with interest @ Rs.7% per annum from 16.04.2008

till its realisation. By virtue of the said award, both the petitioners were

granted Rs.2,00,000/- each, totalling amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, and the

rest of the awarded amount was directed to be deposited in recurring /

FDR in any registered / scheduled Banks for a period of 5 years.

3. In compliance of the aforesaid award, respondent No.3 - National

Insurance Company Limited has deposited the awarded sum before the

learned Tribunal. Thereafter, on 11.01.2022, the learned Tribunal has

issued cheque amounting to Rs.42,47,016/- while directing the concerned

Bank for depositing the same in the name of petitioners. In pursuance of

the said direction, the State Bank of India, Branch Katghora issued FDRs

in the name of the petitioners for the amount of Rs.19,23,508/- in each

name.

4. According to the petitioners, since they are constructing their house

for residential purpose and the Engineer has estimated the value for it to

the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-, therefore, they are in need of money and

accordingly moved an application before the learned Tribunal seeking

release of said FDRs so as to withdraw the amount as deposited therein

from the concerned Bank. The learned Tribunal, after considering the

said application has allowed the same in part entitling the petitioners to

withdraw a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each from the said FDRs.

5. Being aggrieved with the said order, the instant petition has been

filed with a prayer for the release of the said FDRs.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

entire papers annexed with this petition carefully.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners are the claimants and by virtue of the

Award dated 11.04.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed in MACT No.94/2008,

they have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.37,35,136/- with

7% interest per annum from the date of application, i.e., 16.04.2008 till its

realisation. In the said Award, the petitioners were entitled to withdraw

Rs.2,00,000/- each, total amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- and the rest was

directed to be deposited in FDRs in any Scheduled Bank for the period of

5 years. Since the petitioners are constructing a residential house and

cost of it was estimated by the Engineer to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-,

therefore, the petitioners have moved an application for withdrawal of the

said FDRs. However, by virtue of the order impugned, they have been

permitted to withdraw the part of it only, as mentioned herein above.

8. At this juncture, it is to be noted that in order to safeguard the

interest of the claimants, the Supreme Court in the matter of General

Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs.

Susamma Thomas and others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176, while

relying upon certain principles enunciated in Union Carbide Corporation

vs. Union of India and Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan vs. United India

Insurance Company Limited reported respectively in (1991) 4 SCC 584

and (1982) 1 Gujarat Law Reporter 756, has directed the Tribunal to

observe the guidelines as laid down in para 23, which read as under :-

"23. In a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance C. Ltd., (1982) 1 Guj LR 756 this Court offered the following guidelines: (Guj LR pp.

         759-60)


(i)     The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of

minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be 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;

(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 semi-literate 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 and 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 do order;

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

(vi) In personal injury case 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 made 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

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. "

9. The judgment in Muljibhai's case (supra) was followed by the Full

Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of New India Insurance Co.

Limited Vs. Kamlaben and others, 1993 (1) Gujarat Law Reporter 779.

This judgment of the Full Bench became the subject matter of challenge

before the Apex Court in the case of Lilaben Udesing Gohel Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1605,

and other connected matters. Simultaneously, another Public Interest

Litigation also came to be filed before the Apex Court challenging the

directions issued regarding deposit of the compensation amount. All

these connected matters were decided by the Apex Court in Lilaben

Udesing Gohel's case (supra). The Apex Court on consideration of the

entire issue approved the guidelines in Muljibhai's case (supra) as

approved in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) and

made further observations which read as under :-

"Before we part we must observe that even though the guidelines laid down in Muljibhai's case have been approved and applied by this Court in the aforementioned two cases, many Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and even some of the High Courts in other parts of the country do not follow them. We are also told that in claims that are settled in or outside the Court or Tribunal, including Lok Adalats or Lok Nyayalayas, these guidelines are overlooked. We would like to make it absolutely clear that in all cases in which compensation is awarded for injury caused in a motor accident, whether by way of adjudication or agreement between the parties the Court/Tribunal must apply these guidelines. We must add one further guidelines to the effect that when the amount is invested in a fixed deposit, the bank should invariably be directed to affix a note on the Fixed Deposit Receipt that no loan or advance should be granted on the strength of the said FDR without the express permission of the Court/Tribunal which ordered the deposit. This will eliminate the defeating the very purpose of the order. We do hope that the Courts/Tribunals in the country will not succumb to the temptation of permitting huge withdrawals in the hope of disposing of the claim. We are sure that the

Courts/Tribunals will realise their duty towards the victims of the accident so that a large part of the compensation amount is not lost to them. The very purpose of laying down the guidelines was to ensure the safety of the amount so that the claimants do not become victims of unscrupulous persons and the unethical agreements or arrangements. We hope out anxiety to protect the claimants from exploitation by such elements will be equally shared by the Courts/Tribunals."

10. In view of directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

judgments as mentioned above, the Tribunals started issuing directions

for deposit of the amounts of compensation in nationalised banks to

safeguard the interest of the claimants and also to ensure that the

compensation amount is not frittered away in the hands of the

unscrupulous persons. The guidelines are exhaustive enough to prevent

the compensation flowing into hands of unscrupulous persons just not to

deprive the victims of the accidents or their heirs from utilizing the amount

of compensation for the well being of the family. It is also the object of the

guidelines to overcome their financial difficulty. The amount of

compensation is for well being of the family of the deceased-victim and, in

case, the amount of compensation is not allowed to be utilized, then no

purpose would be served.

11. As observed herein above, the Award was passed on 11.04.2017

(Annexure P/2) and the awarded sum has been deposited by the

National Insurance Company Limited only in the year 2022, i.e.,

approximately after passing of 5 years and the learned Tribunal, vide its

letter dated 11.01.2022 (Annexure P/3), has issued a cheque bearing

No.496473 for Rs.42,47,016/- and directed the State Bank of India,

Branch Katghora for its deposits in FDRs for the period of 5 years. The

petitioners were thus deprived of utilizing their claim for a considerable

period of more than 5 years. Be that as it may, the release of FDRs has

been sought for the construction of house as per the estimate furnished

by the Engineer, and therefore, they have applied for the release of the

alleged FDRs from the concerned nationalized bank so as to meet the

emergent need for the said purpose. The reasons assigned in the

application appear to be genuine one and even while observing the said

need of the petitioners, part of FDR has been directed to be released.

Considering the emergent need as mentioned in the application duly

supported by relevant papers, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed

the release of FDRs in favour of the petitioners.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure P/1)

as passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside and a direction is

issued to release the compensation amount of the petitioners as

deposited with the said Bank. The petitioners are accordingly permitted to

withdraw premature release of FDRs from the concerned Bank. The

Bank authorities are also directed to release the amount after proper

verification.

13. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is accordingly allowed.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Anjani