The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P5 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha [for brevity "the Tribunal"] in an application filed by the petitioner for release of the amounts deposited in Fixed Deposit, out of the award amounts.
2. The petitioner, a widow, sought for release of the amounts which were directed to be deposited for three years on the ground that she intends to purchase a residential property. The petitioner had filed an application initially, numbered as I.A.No.1724 of 2014. The agreement of sale was also produced along with the said application. But, since the period fixed for the performance of the said agreement was over, the said application was dismissed as not pressed, on 21.07.2014. Subsequently I.A.No.2569 of 2014 was filed. When the said application came up for orders on 19.09.2014, the Tribunal noticed that the period of performance of the agreement had already expired. Hence, a direction was issued to file an affidavit as to any extension made.
OP(MAC).No.175 of 2014 - 2 -
However, the petitioner filed the present application [I.A.No.3898 of 2014], where a fresh agreement was produced, wherein the period for performance was till 07.12.2014. The Tribunal doubted the genuineness of the agreement and rejected the application.
3. The apprehensions expressed by the Tribunal in Exhibit P5, according to this Court, is unfounded. Merely for the reason that an earlier application was not pressed and a fresh application was filed, producing the agreement in which the period for performance was current, the Tribunal could not have dismissed the same. In fact in A.V Padma and v. R.Venugopal [(2012) 3 SCC 378], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Tribunals should not mechanically order deposit of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposits as a matter of course without recording the reasons for making such orders. Due regard should be had to the age, fiscal and social background, literacy status etc, of the claimant when making such orders; to ensure that the amounts awarded are not frittered away. Deposit of amounts could be ordered in the case of minors, illiterates and others whose social status requires such a regulatory order and the larger interest of the claimant should be the guiding factor. Thus, the Hon'ble OP(MAC).No.175 of 2014 - 3 -
Supreme Court had deprecated the rigid stand of various Tribunals while considering and disposing of the applications seeking release of money.
4. The petitioner is the widow of a person who died in a motor accident on 02.03.1999; but in the claim petition of the year 2000, the award was passed only on 28.02.1013. It is specifically stated in the Original Petition that the petitioner and her children have no property of their own and are living along with the parents of the petitioner. The need projected for release of the money is for purchase of a residential property. In the above view of the matter, it is directed that the Tribunal shall disburse the amounts expeditiously, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, especially taking into account the fact that the period for performance of the agreement expires on 07.12.2014.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )