Arifa Sultana Parvin vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3370 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Arifa Sultana Parvin vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 21 February, 2025

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                              Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010021962025




                                                       undefined

                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WP(C)/837/2025

         ARIFA SULTANA PARVIN
         W/O- LATE ZAHANGIR SARKAR,
         VILL- CHAGOLCHORA PART-II,
         P.O. AND P.S.- DHUBRI,
         DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
         OF ASSAM,
         FINANCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06.

         2:THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

         LOCAL HEAD OFFICE
         DISPUR
         GUWAHATI

         DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
         ASSAM
         PIN- 781006.

         3:THE BRANCH MANAGER
          STATE BANK OF INDIA
          GOLAKGANJ BRANCH
          P.O. AND P.S.- GOLAKGANJ

         DIST.- DHUBRI
         ASSAM
                                                                       Page No.# 2/7

            PIN- 783334.

            4:THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL NO. 2
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER/ SHERISTADAR

            BHARALUMUKH
            KAMRUP(M)

            AT GUWAHATI
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR N ZAMAN, MR. KHAIRUL ISLAM,MR. H RAHMAN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE DEPTT., SC, SBI




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                        ORDER

Date : 21-02-2025

Heard Mr. N. Zaman, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation Department for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. B.K. Sen, learned Standing Counsel, State Bank of India for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

2. The petitioner was the wife of one Late Zahangir Sarkar. On 06.11.2011 while the petitioner's husband, Zahangir Sarkar was riding his motorcycle from his house towards Alamganj, a road traffic accident occurred as he was knocked down by a vehicle bearing Registration no. AS-01/R-7441 [Tata Sumo] at a place near Motiabog on National Highway 31. In the said accident, Zahangir Sarkar sustained grievous injuries on his person and he was admitted in the Dhubri Civil Hospital for his treatment. But, he succumbed to his injuries during the Page No.# 3/7

treatment on 08.11.2011. Stating that the accident which led to the death of the Zahangir Sarkar, occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration no. AS-01/R-7441 [Tata Sumo], the petitioner as the claimant preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal no. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati claiming a compensation amount of Rs. 30,26,332/-. The said claim application was registered and numbered as MAC Case no. 1110 of 2022 wherein the owner, the driver and the insurer of the vehicle Registration no. AS-01/R-7441 [Tata Sumo] were impleaded as opposite parties.

3. The claim application, MAC Case no. 1110 of 2022 was disposed by a Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2015 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati ['the Tribunal', for short].

4. In the proceedings of MAC Case no. 1110 of 2022, the learned Tribunal framed the following four issues :-

I. Whether the death was caused to the deceased Zahangir Sarkar due to motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.11.2011 due to hitting by the vehicle bearing Regd. No. AS-01/R- 7441 [Tata Sumo]?

II. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle- in-question?

III. Whether the driving license and the insurance policy were valid on the day of accident to cover up the accident?

IV. Whether the claimant[s] is/are entitled to get any compensation?

5. In the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2015, the learned Tribunal Page No.# 4/7

answered all the issues in affirmative in favour of the claimants. On the basis of evidence led and after hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal arrived at a compensation amount of Rs. 14,94,500/- and passed the following order :-

12. The case is disposed of accordingly. Claimant Is awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,94,500/- [Rupees fourteen lacs ninety four thousand and five hundred only] for the death of deceased Zahangir Sarkar in a motor vehicle accident. O/P No. 1, the Insurance co. is directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimant within a period of 90 days from today i.e. 22.01.2015. The amount of compensation shall carry an interest of @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till Its realization. Out of the amount Rs. 3,00,000/- is awarded to in the name of Mother of the deceased i.e. Shamida Bibi. Out of the amount awarded Rs.

3,00,000/- will be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of Claimant No. 1 in any nationalized bank of her home district for a period of 5 years. The O/P No. 1 i.e. insurance Co. shall be entitled to deduct the Interim compensation paid to the claimant, if any from the awarded amount.

6. In compliance of the direction given in the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2015, the insurer deposited the requisite amount before the learned Tribunal. In terms of the direction given by the learned Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was kept in the form of fixed deposit in the Golakganj Branch of the respondent State Bank of India.

7. The said fixed deposit kept in Account no. 35012041387 was for a term of five years with the date of opening as 22.06.2015 and the date of maturity as 22.06.2020. As per the fixed deposit receipt, annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition, the maturity value of the fixed deposit on the date of maturity was Rs. 4,05,784/-.

Page No.# 5/7

8. The parents of Zahangir Sarkar, aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 22.01.2015 of the learned Tribunal, preferred an appeal before this Court. The said appeal was registered and numbered as MAC Appeal no. 108 of 2015. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant no. 1, who was the father of Late Zahangir Sarkar expired.

9. When the appeal was listed on 26.09.2024, the fact of demise of the appellant no. 1 was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the appellants, and it was submitted by the counsel for the appellant no. 2, that is, the mother of Late Zahangir Sarkar was not interested to pursue the appeal. After recording of state submissions, the appeal came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 26.09.2024.

10. In the meantime, the petitioner, in need of money, submitted a representation before the respondent no. 3 on 19.11.2024 seeking release of the maturity value standing in the credit of fixed deposit account no. 35012041387, opened in terms of the direction given by the learned Tribunal in the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2015 as the fixed deposit had already attained maturity on expiry of five years. The fact of withdrawal of the appeal was also brought to the notice of the respondent no. 3 by the said representation. When despite submission of the said representation to release the fixed deposit maturity amount to the petitioner, the same has not been released and disbursed to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition.

11. It is noticeable from the above conspectus of facts that the issue lies in a Page No.# 6/7

narrow compass. When the writ petition was listed earlier on 19.02.2025, Mr. Sen, learned counsel representing respondent no. 3 was asked to obtain as to why the fixed deposit amount, even after maturity, has not yet been disbursed to the petitioner despite withdrawal of the appeal on 26.09.2024 and despite communication of the same order with the representation of the petitioner on 20.11.2024.

12. Today, Mr. Sen, learned counsel, on the basis of instructions received from the respondent no. 3, has submitted that after receipt of the representation dated 20.11.2024, the respondent no. 3 according in-principle approval had forwarded the matter to the Local Head Office of the State Bank of India but till date, no communication has been received from the Local Head Office of the State Bank of India. Mr. Sen has submitted that he has, however, not been apprised about the reason of such delay occurred at the Local Head Office, State Bank of India.

13. It is an admitted position that the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in favour of the claimant-petitioner by the learned Tribunal in its Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2015 for a period of five years and accordingly, fixed deposit Account no. 35012041387 which was opened on 20.06.2020 as the maturity date. Apart from the petitioner as the wife of Late Zahangir Sarkar, it was the parents of Late Zahangir Sarkar, who were the claimants for the compensation amount. The learned Tribunal in the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2015 had awarded an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the mother of Late Zahangir Sarkar. With the withdrawal of the appeal on the 26.09.2024, there is no other claimant to stake any claim in Page No.# 7/7

respect of the fixed deposit amount, which had matured already.

14. As there is no claimant other than the petitioner, the petitioner has the right to claim the amount lying in the credit of the petitioner, in the fixed Deposit Account no. 35102041383 which should be released in her favour. In such obtaining fact situation, the respondent no. 3 is directed to disburse the maturity value and any other interest amount, if accrued, to the petitioner forthwith. On appearance of the petitioner before the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 3 after satisfying himself after due identification of the petitioner, shall release the applicable amount forthwith in favour of the petitioner.

15. In order to enable Mr. Sen to communicate this order, Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 is to be supplied with a copy of this Order.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant