Legal Heirs Of Decd. Vitthalbhai ... vs United India Insurance Company ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4145 Guj

      C/SCA/2000/2020                                ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2000 of 2020

==========================================================
              LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. VITTHALBHAI TEMABHAI
                                Versus
                UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                             Date : 13/04/2022

                               ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners - original claimants seek to challenge the order dated 2.12.2019 passed by the MAC Tribunal (Aux.) and 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') in Civil Misc. Application No.1065 of 2019 in MAC Petition No.194 of 1989, whereby the Tribunal disbursed only 30% amount in favour of claimants and rest of the 70% amount ordered to be deposited in FDRs for a period of 7 years.

2. Brief facts of the present case can be stated as under:

2.1 The claimants have filed the claim petition No.194 of 1989 before the Tribunal for compensation for the untimely death of Vitthalbhai Premabhai, arising out of the motor vehicular accident.

2.2 The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and

C/SCA/2000/2020 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022

pleadings, vide its judgment and award dated 14.7.1998, awarded a sum of Rs.1,33,800/- with 12% interest towards compensation. The Tribunal further directed to deduct requisite stamp duty and also the amount of interim compensation. Thereafter, from the remaining amount, the Tribunal directed to pay 25% amount to the claimants and rest of the amount came to be deposited by way of fixed deposit in the nationalized bank for a period of 7 years.

2.3 It appears that being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the claimants have approached this Court by way of First Appeal No.6265 of 1998, which came to be decided vide oral judgment dated 20.11.2010 by enhancing the compensation of Rs.91,200/- with 7.5% interest.

2.4 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Insurance Co. has deposited a sum of Rs.2,98,143/- before the Tribunal.

2.5 The petitioners - claimants have preferred Misc. Civil Application No.1065 of 2019 in MAC Petition No.194 of 1989 for withdrawal of the said amount on 17.10.2019. The said application came to be decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 2.12.2019, wherein the Tribunal permitted withdrawal of 30% amount only and rest of the 70% amount was ordered to be invested in fixed deposit for a period of 7 years.

2.6 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the original claimant has approached this Court by way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I have heard Mr.Y.J.Patel, learned counsel for the

C/SCA/2000/2020 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022

petitioners and Mr.Rathin P. Raval, learned counsel for the Insurance Co.

4. Mr.Y.J.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is not tenable under the law being contrary to the purport and ambit of the Motor Vehicles Act. Mr.Patel submitted that the accident took place somewhere in the year 1989 and thus, today, one of the claimants i.e. widow is more than 63 years and other claimants i.e. sons are also major and, therefore, no purpose would be achieved if after 30 years, again the major portion of compensation be invested in FDRs. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No.1 being a widow is in dire need of amount of compensation because of her medical routine wear and tear and to meet with other social obligations. So far as the other petitioners are concerned, they all are major and able to take their decision in a prudent manner. Mr.Patel submitted that the purpose of ordering amount to be invested in FDRs is in case where the claimants are completely illiterate, minor and widow. According to Mr.Patel, in the present case, all the claimants are enough educated so as to take their decision with regard to financial matters and thereby, no purpose of ordering fixed deposit would be achieved.

4.1 By making above submissions, Mr.Patel urged this Court to allow the present petition, as prayed for.

5. Per contra, Mr.Rathin P. Raval, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Co., fairly conceded that the judgment rendered by this Court in First Appeal No.6265 of

C/SCA/2000/2020 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022

1998 is fully implemented and the Insurance Co. has not filed any Appeal there against. Mr.Raval, however, could not even dispute the fact that before the Tribunal, his counter part has also given no objection against the withdrawal of entire amount.

5.1 By making above submissions, Mr.Raval urged this Court to pass appropriate orders, in the interest of justice.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material produced on record, more particularly the impugned order as well as the judgment of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.6265 of 1998. No other and further submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, except what are stated herein-above.

7. Considering the submissions of the respective parties, the undisputed fact emanating from the record is that this claim is as old as 30 years. The claimants are widow and the sons of the deceased. Undisputedly, the widow and the claimants are not rustic illiterate persons, who could not look- after their well-being. Considering the aforesaid fact and keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., reported in 1994 ACJ 1, wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

"17. 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/s. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584 in the matter of' appropriate investments to safe guard the feed

C/SCA/2000/2020 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022

from being flittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. In that case approving the Judgement of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhal Ajarambhai Harijan V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1982 (1) 23 Guj LR 756, this Court offered the following guidelines :

"(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor 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 (1) 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 rouge 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 (1) 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

C/SCA/2000/2020 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022

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 cases 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 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 an 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."

These guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases."

8. In view of the aforesaid, sufficient discretion has been given to the Claims 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 Tribunal often taking a very rigid stand and is mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit.

C/SCA/2000/2020 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022

Such rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by the Apex 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 above guideline was issued by the 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. But it appears that said guidelines understood by the Tribunal in a very rigid manner and thereby, in almost all the matters, orders of long term fixed deposit are passed. The Tribunal should appreciate that the amount of compensation is for the purpose of giving aid to the sufferer of accident and thereby, if the guidelines are construed so rigidly that in all the cases, the amount is ordered to be invested in fixed deposit, the benevolent purpose of the Act would be frustrated.

9. In the instant case, it is not the case that the claimants are rustic illiterate and completely uneducated. Although one of petitioners is a widow, but that would not be the sole decisive factor that the amount in question should be deposited in fixed deposit, more particularly when the Insurance Co. has also given no objection certificate against the withdrawal of the amount.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 2.12.2019 passed by the MAC Tribunal (Aux.) and 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') in Civil Misc. Application No.1065 of 2019 in MAC Petition No.194 of 1989, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

C/SCA/2000/2020 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022

11. In view of above, the present petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 2.12.2019 passed by the MAC Tribunal (Aux.) and 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Civil Misc. Application No.1065 of 2019 in MAC Petition No.194 of 1989, is hereby quashed and set aside, with a direction to the Tribunal concerned to disburse the amount as per the prayers prayed for Civil Misc. Application No.1065 of 2019.

(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) V.J. SATWARA