Faisal Mohammadhanif Ada vs United India Insurance Company Limited

Gita Gopi, J

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. M.M. Kharadi, who submits that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Panchmahals at Godhra in its order dated 11.01.2023 in the Interim Order below Exh.1 in Civil Misc. Application No.1180 of 2022 has failed to assign any reasons for rejecting the application made by the petitioner for total withdrawal of the compensation amount; only Rs.2,28,965/- was ordered to be paid and rest of the amount, i.e. Rs.3,43,447/- has been ordered to be invested in a Fixed Deposit Scheme for five years.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is staying in a rented house and wants to construct his own house. The land was purchased on 03.08.2016 and necessary fee for the construction has been deposited on 28.02.2019. Though such documents were placed on record, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the same.

In the case of A.V. Padma & Ors. Vs. R. Venugopal & Ors., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 378, while appreciating the guidelines issued in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), it has been observed as under :

“7. The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.

Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi-literate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.

The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.

The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice.”

In the case of A.V. Padma (supra), the guidelines so issued in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), has been clarified. Hence, it could be said that sufficient discretion has been given to the tribunal to exercise, considering the need of the applicant-claimant. In case of literate person, the Tribunal is required to give relaxation by not adopting pedantic approach of investing the money in long term FDR without recording reasons for investing the money in long term deposits. It has been observed in the case of A.V. Padma (supra) that the Tribunal are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering, almost in all cases, the amount of compensation to be invested in long term FDRs. The deposited money are of the claimants. The literates can prudently exercise discretion, manage their funds and can individually decide about systematic planning for investing the money.

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the records of the case. M.A.C.P. No.2605 of 2000 was instituted in the year 2000 and the judgment and award was drawn on 12.06.2009 and after a considerably long period, the above prayer was made. The case appears to be a genuine one and the petitioner desires to construct a new house. In support of the above, necessary documents have been placed on record.

In view of the aforesaid discussion as also considering the ratio laid down in the case of A.V. Padma (supra), the petition succeeds. Hence, the total amount deposited in the Fixed Deposit Receipt be paid to the petitioner-claimant, alongwith the interest accrued thereon, after carrying out the necessary procedure for verification of his identity. Hence, the order dated 11.01.2023 in the Interim Order below Exh.1 in Civil Misc. Application No.1180 of 2022 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Panchmahals at Godhra stands modified to the above extent.

Direct Service is permitted.