Gujarat High Court
Lh Of Decd Dinesh Rasikbhai Rathod , ... vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd on 29 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 684 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
LH OF DECD DINESH RASIKBHAI RATHOD , DEVIBEN RASIKBHAI
RATHOD
Versus
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.NEHA MUKHERJEE for MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 29/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate
Ms.Mukherjee for learned advocate Ms.Pathak waives
service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India challenging the order passed by the learned
Workman Compensation Commissioner and Senior Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
Judge, Labour Court 2, Rajkot dated 13.03.2024, in
Workman Compensation (Fatal) Case No.7 of 2021,
whereby, the application preferred by the applicant-
mother of the deceased for premature release of the
Fixed Deposit came to be dismissed.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Modi for the pertitioner and
learned advocate Ms.Pathak for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that son of the
applicant died, therefore, order was passed by the
Tribunal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
on 23.03.2023 directing the respondent to pay the
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- which was paid and the
amount was invested in fixed deposit receipt
No.0728897 for five years i.e. from 03.04.2023 to
03.04.2028. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that as
the applicant is aged more than 60 years and her house
which collapsed needed renovation and there was no
other place for her shelter, the mother filed an
application before the learned labour court praying to
release Rs.3,00,000/- out of the amount invested by way
of fixed deposit.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that alongwith an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
application the photographs of the house were also
placed before the learned court and as the award has
not been challenged by the insurance company and
attained the finality, learned court below has committed
error in rejecting the application filed by the present
petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Modi submits that
without considering the basic need in mechanical
manner, the learned labour court has dismissed the
application by observing that the petitioner is having
other major sons and she is receiving the interest on the
said fixed deposit on quarterly basis, the amount if
released would be spent for other purposes and on that
ground the application came to be rejected. Learned
advocate Mr.Modi submits that without considering the
age of the mother and the requirement as stated, the
learned labour court has passed an order therefore,
same is required to be set aside and the petitioner is
required to be paid Rs.3,00,000/- out of the amount
invested by way of fixed deposit.
4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Modi has relied on the decision
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of A.V.Padma
and others Versus R.Venugopal and others
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
reported in 2012 ACJ 698 and submitted that the
discretion is given to the claim Tribunal, to the learned
courts not to invest on investment of compensation
amount in long term fixed deposit and release even the
whole amount after considering the requirement placed
before the learned courts. In view of the above
submission learned advocate Mr.Modi prays to allow this
petition by setting aside the impugned order dated
13.03.2023.
5. On the other hand learned advocate Ms.Pathak submits
that as as the insurance company has not challenged the
aforesaid order, therefore it would be for the learned
court to decide either to release in favour of the
petitioner or to invest in the fixed deposit on long term
basis therefore, they would be a formal party and no
other orders are required to be passed against them.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates and considering the guidelines issued by the
Apex Court in the case of A.V.Padma and others
Versus R.Venugopal and others (supra), it is
undisputed fact that the amount as directed by the
learned court in Workman Compensation (Fatal)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
Application No.7 of 2021 was deposited by the Insurance
Company and was invested initially for a period of one
year on 02.03.2023 and thereafter further invested for
the period of five years.
6.1. Referring the decision rendered by the learned labour
court under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, it
is also not disputed that the mother was sole dependent
of the deceased and therefore, she is only the person
who is entitled for the amount which is deposited by the
Insurance Company. Learned court has also recorded
the consent given by the other heirs namely
Shaileshbhai Rasikbhai Rathod and Ravjibhai Rasikbhai
Rathod who are brothers and aged around 42 years and
38 years respectively.
6.2. The decision rendered by the Apex Court wherein the
Apex Court has categorized the claimants in three
categories namely illiterate claimants and widows, semi
literate claimants and literate claimants. The present
petitioner fall under the first category i.e. the illeterate
claimants and widows and therefore, as per the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court before releasing the
amount, the Tribunal could have made sure that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
amount is actually spent for the purpose, and demand is
not ruse to withdraw the money. In the present case,
demand is made for the purpose of renovation of house
and in support of the said demands photographs were
also placed on record.
6.3. It is undisputed fact that petitioner is having two
other sons, however considering her age which is
recorded by the learned court i.e. 62 years and the
photographs annexed with the petition, this Court is of
the view that it is in the larger interest of the claimant
who is the mother of the deceased son to release the
amount and to renovate the house which is in
deteriorate condition.
6.4. Undoubtedly the guidelines were issued by this Court
to invest the amount to safeguard the interest of the
claimant. However the same would not mean that the
learned Tribunal would take rigid stand while
considering he application for release of money. As per
the observation made by the Apex Court, the guidelines
cast a responsibility on the Tribunal to pass appropriate
order after examining each case on its merits. However,
learned Tribunals are passing orders in routine and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
casual manner ignoring the object and spirit of the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court and rejecting the
application without considering the genuine requirement
of the claimant.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that
the present petition is required to be allowed and the
petitioner is required to be permitted to release the
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the fixed deposit which is
invested in the FD No.0728897 at the same time to
ensure that the amount is spent for the purpose which is
mentioned in the application. The undertaking is also
required to be filed by the petitioner before the learned
labour court regarding not spending the amount for any
other purpose.
8. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Order passed by the
learned court on 13.03.2024 in Workman Compensation
(Fatal) Application No.7 of 2021 is hereby set aside. The
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- be released from the fixed
deposit No.0728897 and the remaining amount be
invested in the fixed deposit for further period of three
years.
9. Rule is made absolute.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
10. Direct service is permitted.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
