JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 31.7.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal by which the application of the petitioner for release of the amount deposited with Tribunal has been rejected.
3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide its, award dated 3.10.2001 awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. In pursuance of the award an amount of Rs. 2,24,250 was deposited. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after receipt of the money passed order dated 15.3.2004 that an amount of Rs. 1,24,000 be invested for one year in a fixed deposit. Petitioner on 15.7.2004 moved an application praying that petitioner be paid the entire amount. The petitioner in the application vaguely stated that she required the amount for business and other important works. The Tribunal by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 31.7.2004 rejected the application. The Tribunal observed that petitioner has already been given 1,00,000 lac in case, and the Tribunal observed that in the application it has not been stated that which business will be done by the petitioner and no other details have been given.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the Tribunal while giving an award dated 3.10.2001 did not put any condition for the release of the amount, hence the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reject the application of the petitioner.
5. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. Petitioner while returning by vehicle Tata Sumo, the vehicle U. P. 084/5552 negligently hit in which the daughter of claimant Kumari Sonali Jain died. It is true that in the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that no condition for release of the amount was mentioned. However, when the petitioner made an application for releasing the amount, the same has been rejected.
6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that when no condition was put in the award, the application for release of the amount cannot be rejected. The guidelines which have been laid down by the Apex Court for release of the amount awarded in compensation has to be kept in mind by the Tribunal while releasing the amount. The Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors., 1994 ACJ 1 laid down following in paragraphs 16 and 17 :
"16. Pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court a sum of Rs. 3,98,000 had been invested out of which a sum of Rs. 3,60,000 is invested in a nationalized Bank. It is appropriate that the appellant shall deposit the balance of the amount together with accrued interest in the Tribunal. The Tribunal will take into account what measures of safety are required to be adopted to protect the interests of the minors. It is also necessary to bear in mind that even in respect of the claimants who are sui juris, their interests, if they are illiterate or semiliterate, must also be protected from possible exploitation.
17. 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 Corporation 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 susceptible to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1983 ACJ 57 (Guj), this Court offered the following guidelines :
"(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor 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 rogue to withdraw money ;
(iii) In the case of semiliterate 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 expanding 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 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 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 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."
7. The observation of the Apex Court in paragraph 16 is that the Tribunal will take into account as to what measures of safety are required to be adopted to protect the interests of the minors.
8. Thus the Tribunal while disbursing the amount has to act in the interest of the claimant in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court. The submission that if no condition is put in the award, subsequently Tribunal cannot while releasing the amount direct for investment of the amount or take any other safety measures cannot be accepted.
9. However, according to the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court itself, it is open for the claimant to make an application and on sufficient reasons, the Tribunal can always release the amount. In the present case, the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner observing that no details of the business or other important work has been disclosed in the application. Copy of the application has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition which clearly shows that there was no details of the purpose for which amount was sought to be withdrawn. No error has been committed by the Tribunal in rejecting such vague application which do not mention any details or purpose for which amount was sought to be withdrawn.
10. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that no error has been committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the application. However, in case petitioner makes an application giving details of purpose for which amount is sought to be withdrawn, the Tribunal will consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.