1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the respondent no.1 in Misc. Case No.33 of 2019, arising out of Motor Accident Claim Petition No.104 of 2015 (Satyapal Sharma and others vs. Karuddin and others) and for a direction commanding the respondent no.1 to release the amount of compensation to the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Akshay Sharma-son of petitioners died in a road accident on 6.3.2015. The petitioners filed a Claim Petition No.104 of 2015 under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the said claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgement and order dated 26.9.2017 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,16,000/- along with 7% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till the payment made.
4. It also appears for the record that the insurance company deposited the awarded amount along with 7% interest and as per the award, Rs.16,000/- each was released in favour of both the petitioners-the father and mother of the deceased and Rs.1,00,000/- each was directed to be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years and the rest amount was kept in FDRs in favour of claimant nos.3 and 4. It also appears from the record that the petitioners had moved a release application No.33 of 2019, which was rejected on 16.10.2019, giving rise to the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the release application was filed by petitioners and they needed money for their treatment. He has relied the judgment passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36701 of 2013 (Smt. Farmoodi Vs. Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Muzaffarnagar and Others), reported in 2014 (1) T.A.C. 630 (All.). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-
"5. The purpose of keeping the amount in a fixed deposit is for a specific purpose. The Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sushamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (1) TAC 323 issued certain guidelines to the Claims Tribunal while awarding compensation. The said guidelines are extracted below:-
"(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."
6. These guidelines have now been incorporated by the legislature and Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 have been inserted in the Rules.
9. The Supreme Court held that these guidelines were issued to keep the amount in a fixed deposit for a period of time was mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case, in view of the above, this Court finds that the Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand and had mechanically passed the order without understanding and without appreciating the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court. The guidelines, which have now been incorporated in the Rules, were only to safeguard the interest of the claimants particularly the minors and the illiterates. In the instant case, the Court finds that the application was meant for the release of the money so that the petitioner can get her house repaired, but the Tribunal has failed to understand the need and urgency in the matter and has mechanically passed the order while rejecting the application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a genuine reason has been given for the release of the amount.
8. Consequently, without further adverting on this issue, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 cannot be sustained and is quashed.
9. The writ petition is allowed and the petitioners are entitled for the release of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal is directed to release the amount along with the interest so accrued,if any, immediately upon the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 RKP