Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39077 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Murahi Devi Respondent :- The District Judge Kanpur Dehat Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Nath Chaubey
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 1.11.2018 passed by District Judge, Kanpur Dehat rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for permission to encash the amount invested in F.D.R. in her favour in pursuance of the directions issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while deciding Motor Accident Claim Petition No.174 of 2013. The claim petition was filed by the petitioner alongwith her minor son Amit Kumar and minor daughter Km. Rubi claiming compensation on account of death of Rajendra Prasad their husband/father in a motor accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by award dated 23.3.2017, awarded a compensation of Rs.20,86,259/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment is made. There was a further direction to apportion the said amount between the claimants so that minors got Rs.5 lakh each and remaining sum was awarded to the petitioner. The sum awarded to the minors was directed to be invested in an F.D.R. of a nationalized bank for a period of three years and which would be encashed after attainment of majority. In respect of the sum awarded to the petitioner, apart from one lakh which was directed to be paid forthwith by means of an account payee cheque, the remaining amount was directed to be invested in an F.D.R. for a period of ten years in a nationalized bank and she was authorised to withdraw only the interest earned on the said amount.
The petitioner filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for permission to encash the F.D.R. as money was required in connection with marriage of her daughter Rubi. However, the application has been rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the ground that apart from marriage card, no other convincing evidence was filed to prove that marriage of the daughter is going to be solemnized. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sushamma Thomas and others, 1994 (1) TAC 323, wherein various guidelines to be followed by the Tribunals while awarding compensation were issued. The said guidelines are extracted below:-
"5. (i) The claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposited 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 in (i) above unless it is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expending any 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 realization 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 so 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 an 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 have now been incorporated by the legislature by inserting Rule 220-B in the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal in rejecting the application is wholly erroneous in law inasmuch as the marriage card filed by the petitioner was sufficient to prove that marriage of her daughter is going to be solemnized.
The marriage card has been brought on record alongwith the instant petition and a perusal whereof reveals that the marriage of the daughter of petitioner is to be solemnized with one Arvind on 12.12.2018. There is no reason on record to doubt the contents of the marriage card. The Supreme Court, while laying down guidelines in the above referred judgement, has specifically held that the Tribunal is invested with the power to permit withdrawal of money in case of an emergency.
There is no evidence that the petitioner has any source of income of her own. The petitioner would definitely be requiring money in the marriage of her daughter. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the application was made on genuine grounds and was not a ploy to withdraw money. However, at the same time, this Court is also of the opinion that out of Rs.14,50,060/-, which is invested in F.D.R. in favour of the petitioner, she should be permitted to withdraw only 50% of the said amount, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw 50% of Rs.14,50,060/- i.e. a sum of Rs.7,25,030/-. The petitioner shall also be entitled to withdraw interest earned on the F.D.R. amount. The Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in this regard and shall ensure that the remaining amount is invested in fixed deposit in favour of the petitioner with similar terms and conditions as contained in the original award.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 30.11.2018 SL