Madhya Pradesh High Court

Panchamlal Patel vs Union Of India on 7 December, 2023

                                             1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
                 ON THE 7th OF December, 2023
                MISC. PETITION No. 1753 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. Panchamlal Patel S/o Shri Lalji Patel,
   aged about 45 years, Occupation:
   Labour   village    Chikhali     P.S.
   Majhgawa Dist. Jabalpur (Madhya
   Pradesh)

2. Jiya Bai Patel W/o Shri Panchamlal
   Patel, aged about 44 years,
   Occupation: House R/o village
   Chikhali, P.S. Majhgawa, District
   Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)

                                                                        .....Petitioners
(By Mrs. Aparna Singh - Advocate)
AND
Union of India through General Manager
West Central Railway Jabalpur (Madhya
Pradesh)

                                                                       .....Respondent
(By Shri Divesh Bhojne - Advocate )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on               : 29.11.2023
Pronounced on             : 07.12.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:-
                                          ORDER

The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning to set aside the condition no.17 of the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2002 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal dated 25.01.2022 in O.A.No./IIu/BPL/230/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lacs Rupees) with interest 6% per annum from the date of the incident dated 18.01.2018 till the date of order.

2. That, the learned Tribunal further imposed a condition no.17, total amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to be paid including interest by the Railway Administration as stated above. Both the petitioners/claimants are entitled to withdraw 10%-10% of their respective shares and the remaining 90%-90% amount shall be kept in the fixed deposit of the Nationalize Bank for eight years for the benefit of petitioners and permitted the claimants to withdraw the interest on its monthly as per their convenience.

3. That, the petitioners/claimants filed this petition challenging to set- aside the condition no.17 of the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2022 and directing the Tribunal to release the amount which has been deposited in the Nationalize Bank in favour of the petitioners.

4. On perusal of the petition, it is clear that the deceased Neetu Patel is the daughter of the petitioners/claimants and by the date of incident i.e. 17.01.2018, the claimants are 45 and 44 years, now they are nearer to 50 years and starts ailments and need to spend some money for their essential needs, therefore, they filed the present petition for setting aside the condition as stated above and directing the Tribunal to release the amount which has been fixed in the Nationalize Bank.

5. The point for determination:

"Whether there is any merit in the petition to allow ?"

6. Admittedly that the Tribunal has no such jurisdiction in case where the claimants are major, who are none other than the parents of the deceased. This condition no.17 is incorporated by the Tribunal is unwarranted and uncalled for in the eye of law. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased and nearer to the age of 50 years have every right to utilize the amount in any manner, as they like.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/Railway has placed reliance in para-23 of General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum Vs. Sussamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176, which reads as follows :

23. 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. Union of India [(1991) 4 SCC 584] in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1982) 1 Guj LR 756] this Court offered the following guidelines: (Guj LR pp. 759-60)

"(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be 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 (i) 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 ruse 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 (i) 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 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. That the above cited decision is not applicable to the present facts of this case and it applied if any of the claimants are minor, the above decision should follow by all the Tribunals in case of compensation of accident case.

9. A judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain and Another Vs. Irfan Ahammed, (2002) 6 SCC 52 , relevant para-8 reads as follows :

8. .............In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the mothers should not be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank.......

10. In the light of above said judgments, no restriction can be imposed on the rights of an adult to claim compensation amount deposited in their names by the Railways.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the parents of the deceased should not be kept in fixed deposit and this deposited money need for them for their necessities.

12. Therefore, the petition is allowed the petitioners/claimants in the present petition near to about 50 years. Hence, the condition imposed in para no.17 of the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2022 is unwarranted and uncalled for in the eye of law and is liable to be set-aside and the

total compensation amount is directed to be released in favour of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.

13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

rk. DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

A T J A B A L PU R

***

BETWEEN:-

1. Panchamlal Patel S/o Shri Lalji Patel, aged about 45 years, Occupation:

Labour village Chikhali P.S. Majhgawa Dist. Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)

2. Jiya Bai Patel W/o Shri Panchamlal Patel, aged about 44 years, Occupation: House R/o village Chikhali, P.S. Majhgawa, District Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)

.....Petitioners AND Union of India through General Manager West Central Railway Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)

.....Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counsel for the petitioner : Mrs. Aparna Singh, Advocate.

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Divesh Bhojne, Advocate

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 07.12.2023.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :