Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3033 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sushil
Respondent :- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal /Additional District Judge Court No. 2, Amroha And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Prakash Mishra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 1.11.2018 passed by the first respondent in Misc. Case No. 59 of 2018 (Sushil Vs. Nagendra Singh and others) arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 127 of 2014 (Sushil Vs. Nagendra Singh and others). With further prayer to direct the first respondent to release the amount of Fixed Deposit Receipt for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- in M.A.C.P. No. 127 of 2014 (Sushil Vs. Nagendra and others).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sustained injury in an accident and during treatment, his right hand was amputated above the knee. The petitioner filed a Claim Petition registered as M.A.C.P. No. 127 of 2014. The said claim petition was allowed vide judgment and award dated 11.8.2016 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,69,700/- along with 6% interest. The Tribunal further directed that Rs. 1,20,000/- may be invested in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years in a Nationalised Bank. The petitioner has moved a release application on 12.10.2018, which has been rejected by the first respondent vide order dated 1.11.2018 without considering the medical certificate of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the release application was filed by the petitioner stating that he is suffering from chest pain and the Doctor has advised him to bypass surgery and the treatment of the petitioner is going on in the Shiv Lok Hospital, Meerut. 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."
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand and has 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 may continue his treatment, but the Tribunal has failed to understand the need and urgency in the matter and has mechanically passed the order while rejecting the application. A genuine reason has been given for the release of the balance amount.
In view of above, the order dated 1.11.2018 passed by the first respondent is hereby quashed and the amount kept in the FDR may be released.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed to release the amount kept in FDR along with the interest so accrued immediately upon the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 A.K.Srivastava