AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N Kumar
Petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the orders dated 15.3.2008, 27.5.2008, 28.6.2008 passed by the Accident claims Tribunal directing deposit of the compensation awarded in Fixed Deposit and refusing to release amount in Fixed deposit to the first petitioner though second and third petitioners have given their no objection.
The material on record discloses a sum of Rs. 6,33,038/- was deposited by the Insurance Company in the Court after the compensation was enhanced by this Court in appeal. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/- has been released to the first petitioner. The remaining amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs is kept in fixed deposit i.e. Rs. 2.00 lakhs in the name of the first petitioner and one lakh each in the name of second and third petitioners. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased whereas second and third petitioners are the daughters of the deceased.
The supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, has laid down the law and has held that:
in 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, etc., etc. Vs. Union of India, etc. etc., in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being flittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation.
(i) in the case of minors invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term of 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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however be allowed to be withdrawn.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 case of illiterate claims also should follow the procedure set-cut in (i) above.
(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) 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 do so.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in the first place, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has no applications to the facts of this case. Neither the tribunal nor the High Court while disposing off the matter has passed an order for such deposit. Secondly, the petitioners are all literate persons. They are well placed in life and therefore, they do not need the protection of the Court and therefore he submits the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the entire amount which is kept in the fixed deposit.
It is true that in the order passed by the tribunal or the High Court, there is no direction to keep the amount in deposit. However, the amount is deposited before the tribunal. It is not stated in the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment that the directions regarding deposit should be mentioned in the award itself. That is a direction issued to the tribunal before permitting withdrawal of the amount of compensation deposited before it. Therefore, the tribunal was fully justified in directing deposit of the said amount in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank and the said action of the tribunal is in accordance with law declared by the Supreme Court and therefore, it cannot be found fault with.
Insofar as the withdrawal of the amount is concerned, it is not the law that merely because the petitioners are rich, capable of taking care of themselves, the entire amount of compensation should be paid to them. In law one cannot make such differences. May be the precaution the Court has to take in case of illiterate, poor and helpless people may not be the same as in case of persons who are able to take care of themselves. However, the Supreme Court has categorically stated, even in the case of literate persons, the tribunal may resort to the procedure intimated as aforesaid. Therefore, it is to be remembered the compensation is awarded on the premise that the bread earner of the family is killed in the accident and it is the compensation given to the dependents as a substitute for what the bread earner would have done i.e., in providing them with the requirements of food and clothing. Therefore, the amount of compensation cannot be released for purchase of house or putting up construction on the existing house. The only exception made out was for purchase of movables or immovable property such as agricultural implements, Rickshaw to earn a living. If there are some justifiable reasons, an exception is made in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court permitting the tribunal to release the said amount but not otherwise.
In these circumstances, the tribunal has kept in mind the law declared by the Supreme Court and has followed the judgment in letter and spirit. I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.