Gujarat High Court
Raghunathbhai Punabhai Bhoi vs Manager, Oriental Bank Of ... on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/SCA/12602/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12602 of 2021
================================================================
RAGHUNATHBHAI PUNABHAI BHOI
Versus
MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, NADIAD BRANCH
================================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KEYUR A VYAS(3247) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. VN. SEVAK(3791) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 02/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. V.N. Sevak, learned advocate
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent bank.
2. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Keyur A. Vyas appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the order
passed by the District Court, Nadiad below Exhibit-1 in Civil Misc.
Application No. 92 of 2021 dated 04.02.2021 in M.A.C.P. No. 982
of 2016 dated 21.02.2019, Whereby, the Tribunal has rejected the
application. The petitioner seeks premature encashment of the
fixed deposit which is lying in the Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Nadiad Branch vide FDR No. 2126112 for a period of five years.
Considering his condition, the petitioner has preferred this petition
for premature encashment.
C/SCA/12602/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
4. It is a case of the petitioner that, due to pandemic the
petitioner does not have any source of income and he is in dire
need of money for study of his son who is studying in college and
therefore, he has preferred the present petition and prayed to
disburse the more amount.
5. I have considered the submissions made at bar and
considered the decision rendered in the Special Civil Application
No. 11483 of 2015 in the case of Kuntal Maheshkumar Gandhi
Vs. Arvind M Gadani and Ors. and the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of A.V. Padma and Ors. Vs. R.
Venugopal and Ors. reported in 2012(1) GLH 442, more
particularly para 5 thereof, which read as under:
"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 others 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
C/SCA/12602/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
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 6 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."
6. In this case, Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,32,400/- along with
the interest at 9% per annum and the said amount is deposited in
the bank. But the petitioner has filed an application for premature
encashment of the amount lying in the fixed deposit. It appears
that, the petitioner is in dire need of money for study of his son
who is studying in college, involved and/or remained in the FDR. It
is not necessary to dwell into such aspects, because any further
delay in receiving the amount of compensation may expose the
petitioner to serious prejudice or he may even lose the chance.
7. It is also appears that, due to pandemic the petitioner does
not have any source of income and he is in dire need of money for
study of his son who is studying in college.
8. In view of the above position, the present petition is hereby
C/SCA/12602/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 04.02.2021
passed by the District Court, Nadiad below Exhibit-1 in Civil Misc.
Application No. 92 of 2021 in M.A.C.P. No. 982 of 2016 dated
21.02.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Tribunal is
directed to permit the petitioner to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- out of
Rs. 98,500/- from the FDR and remaining amount is again
reinvested in the fixed deposit in the name of the present petitioner
for remaining period of fixed deposit i.e. 20.01.2025, within two
weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Petitioner
is entitled to get the interest accrued on it on every quarter. Rule
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The registry to
communicate this order to the Tribunal.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
T. J. Bharwad
