Mansing Punabhai Patel vs Manager, Baroda Gujarat Gramin ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17726 Guj

     C/SCA/8404/2021                            ORDER DATED: 25/11/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8404 of 2021

================================================================
                     MANSING PUNABHAI PATEL
                             Versus
               MANAGER, BARODA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                           Date : 25/11/2021

                            ORAL ORDER

1. Rule.

2. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Makbul I. Mansuri. Though the notice of rule served upon the respondent, none appears before the Court.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Ld. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dahod in CMA (MACP) No. 178 of 2019 dated 27.06.2019. Whereby, the Ld. Tribunal has rejected the application vide order dated 02.03.2021. The petitioner seeks premature encashment of the fixed deposit which is lying in the Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank, Jafrabad Branch at Godhra vide FDR No. 263553 dated 30.07.2019 for a period of five years since the petitioner is alone in the family. During the pendency of the claim petition, his son and wife passed away and he is aged about 77 years. Considering his age, the petitioner has preferred this petition for premature encashment.

C/SCA/8404/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2021

4. In support of the petition, the petitioner stated before the Tribunal and contended that considering his old age and considering the fact that, during the pendency of the appeal and the proceedings, his injured son was passed away and thereafter, his wife also passed away and he has to renovate his old house which is in dilapidated condition and therefore, he needs money for renovation work of his house. Considering all these facts, the Ld. Tribunal has considered his claim petition in part and awarded 30% of the amount from total amount of Rs. 8,52,866/-. The Tribunal ordered to pay 30% amount to the claimant by way of account payee cheque and remaining 70% amount kept in the any nationalized bank for a period of five years.

5. It is a case of the petitioner that, he is in need of the money for the purpose of renovate his house and therefore, he has preferred the present petition and prayed to disburse the more amount.

6. 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 others Vs. R. Venugopal and others 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

C/SCA/8404/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2021

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 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."

7. In this case, the petitioner is being father of the injured son and the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 69,673/- along with the interest at 9% per annum. Against the impugned judgment and award the injured and the insurance company both went into the appeal and

C/SCA/8404/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/11/2021

the Hon'ble High Court, while considering the appeal, enhanced further compensation in tune of Rs. 7,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal 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 the only person now remained in the family and considering his age and the contention raised in the application, petitioner is in need of money 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 loose the chance.

8. It is also appears that, the petitioner is now the only member in the family and for living he has to repair his dwelling house and therefore, he is in need of the amount.

9. In view of the above position, the present petition is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dahod in CMA (MACP) No. 66 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Ld. Tribunal is directed to permit the petitioner to withdraw 50% of the amount from the FDR along with the interest accrued thereon and remaining 50% of the amount is again reinvested in the fixed deposit in the name of the present applicant for a period of three years within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The registry to communicate this order to the Tribunal.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) T. J. Bharwad