Delhi High Court
Sandeep Kumar & Anr vs Prakash Anand & Ors on 29 October, 2014
$~A-32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:29.10.2014
+ CM(M) 946/2014
SANDEEP KUMAR & ANR
(LRS OF BABY KHUSHI) ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate.
versus
PRAKASH ANAND & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Suman Bagga, Advocate for the
Insurance Co./R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)
CM No.17460/2014 (delay)
There is a delay of 15 days in re-filing the petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
The application is disposed of
CM(M) 946/2014
1. By the present petition the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated
29.08.2014 whereby the entire compensation amount was directed to be kept in
a fixed deposit.
2. The background facts are that Baby Khushi (minor) received fatal
injuries in an accident on 30.12.2013. After certain negotiations on 25.07.2014
a settlement/agreement was entered into before the Mediation Centre, Tis
Hazari Court, Delhi whereby it was mutually agreed that respondent
No.3/Insurance Co. shall pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- before the referral court
and the matter shall stand settled.
3. Thereafter on 29.08.2014, the Tribunal noted that the Insurance Co. has
placed on record two cheques of Rs.1,87,500/- in the name of the two claimants
respectively. The Tribunal directed that the amount be kept in two fixed
deposits in Punjab National Bank, Gokhle Market Branch, Delhi for 10 years
without the facility of advance or loan or pre-mature withdrawal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the directions
passed are onerous, harsh and do not give any flexibility to the claimants to
utilise the claim amount for their own welfare. He submits that at least some
component of the compensation amount should have been released to the
claimants. He submits that the claimants are not illiterate or uneducated persons
who would require the kind of protection which the Tribunal has sought to
introduce on the compensation amount.
5. Learned counsel refers to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case
of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma
Thomas & Ors., 1994 ACJ 1, Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors., 2003
ACJ 12, Jai Prakash vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2010 ACJ 455
and A.V. Padma & Ors.vs. R.Venugopal & Ors., 2012 ACJ 698 to contend
that the Tribunal has sufficient discretion not to insist on investment of
compensation amount in a long term fixed deposit and also to release the full
amount in the case of literate person. He submits that the Tribunal should not
take a rigid or mechanical stand in a routine manner and always order that bulk
of the compensation amount to be kept in a long term fixed deposit. The
interest of the claimants has to be taken into account especially the fact that
there could be a requirement for release of immediate funds.
6. There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The Tribunal no doubt in terms of the ratio of the aforesaid judgments of the
Supreme Court are bound to protect the claimants from any unscrupulous
person who may exploit the claimant by alluring them to expend their
compensation amount and fritter away the amount which could otherwise be
utilised in the long term for the benefit of the claimant. However as against this
it has to be also kept in mind that there would always be a need of the claimants
for some immediate relief. The claimants, depending upon the background,
needs and circumstances, are likely to need some funds immediately for their
day to day needs. Hence, a reasonable proportion of the compensation amount
should be normally made available to the claimants for their immediate
utilisation.
7. This court repeatedly receives petitions/application from the claimants
for release of the amount as most of the compensation amount is directed to be
kept in long term fixed deposit leaving no liquidity with the claimants for their
immediate need of funds.
8. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court n the case
of A.V.Padma vs. R. Venugopal (Supra) where the Supreme Court in para 5
held as follows:
"5. 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 Ors. 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."
9. In view of the above legal position, in the facts and circumstances of this
case, it would be fit in the interest of justice that 50% of the compensation
amount be released to the claimants and the balance 50% will continue to
remain in the fixed deposit as directed by the Tribunal with periodical interest
being made available to the claimants.
10. The petition stands disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J
OCTOBER 29, 2014
rb
