Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai Harmaanbhai Rathod vs Vijiya Bank, Nadiad Branch on 12 January, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/SCA/2604/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2604 of 2021
==========================================================
GOVINDBHAI HARMAANBHAI RATHOD
Versus
VIJIYA BANK, NADIAD BRANCH
==========================================================
Appearance:
DARSHIT R BRAHMBHATT(8011) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
SERVED BY RPAD (N)(6) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 12/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner - original
claimant challenging the impugned order passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad dated 07.01.2020 in
MCA No. 1028 of 2019 in MACP No. 1522 of 2011, whereby the
the Tribunal has rejected.
2. The short facts of the case is that on 19.10.2011, the
petitioner met with vehicular accident, on account of which,
the present petitioner has filed M.A.C.P. No. 1522 of 2011
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad.
The Tribunal has, vide impugned judgment and award dated
08.01.2018 awarded compensation of Rs. 5,87,051/- to the
petitioner with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till
realization.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that
C/SCA/2604/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2022
the petitioner had earlier moved an application being MCA No.
190 of 2019 in MACP No. 1522 of 2011 before the Tribunal for
releasing the pre-mature encashment which is invested in
Fixed Deposit in his name lying with the Vijiya Bank, Nadiad
being FDR No. 680948 for a period of five years. He has
submitted that the said application was partially allowed by the
Tribunal vide order dated 15.03.2019. He has also submitted
that the petitioner wanted to withdraw further amount due to
financial crisis facing by the family of the petitioner in
Pandemic period.
4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties
through Video Conference.
5. Considering the present situation of the Pandemic period
and the averments made in the present petition and also
considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of A.V. Padma and others Vs. R. Venugopal and others
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 378, more particularly para Nos. 7
to 10, which reads as under:-
"7. The expression used in guideline (iv) issued by this Court in
Susamma Thomas case is that in the case of literate persons also the
Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline (i), whereas
in the guidelines (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the
Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal
may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline (i) only if, having
regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which
the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal
thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to
ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to
invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
8. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to
insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed
C/SCA/2604/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2022
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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
C/SCA/2604/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2022
Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals
is necessary in the interest of justice."
6. In view of above, this petition is allowed. The impugned
order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at
Nadiad dated 07.01.2020 in MCA No. 1028 of 2019 in MACP
No. 1522 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
Tribunal is directed to release further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
in favour of the present petitioner by issuing account payee
cheque and the Tribunal to direct the concerned Bank in that
regard. The remaining amount to be kept in the Fixed Deposit
Receipt in the Nationalized Bank at the choice of the petitioner.
The interest accrued thereon is to be paid to the petitioner on
every quarter.
7. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
concerned Tribunal through Fax, e-mail and /or any other
suitable electronic mode.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SALIM/
