Pisupati Sai Kumar vs Oriental Insurance

Admittedly, the petitioner herein is an educated man and he was working as Sales Officer and he was gainfully employed. He met with an accident. On an application filed by him u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- by its order and decree in OP No.376 of 1988 dated 16-4-1990. On an appeal filed by the Insurance Company this Court stayed further proceedings on condition that the Company to deposit half of the compensation awarded with interest and costs. On compliance of this order, the petitioner filed an application in CMP No.5778 of 1991 for vacating the interim order. My learned Brother P.L.N. Sarma, J., (as he then was) passed an elaborate order in the following terms :

"It is represented that the conditions imposed in the interim order have been compiled with. The stay is made absolute. The first respondent-sole claimant shall open an account in any nationalised Bank. A sum of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for medical expenses etc., plus a sum of Rs.25,000/- being the compensation amount, shall be credited to his account from out of the amount in deposit. A sum of Rs.25,000/- from out of the balance of the amount in deposit shall be kept in deposit in any nationalised Bank for a period of (30) months. The remaining amount in deposit to the credit of the OP if any, shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of (60) months in any nationalised Bank. Interest accrued on the fixed deposits mentioned above shall be credited to the first respondent sole-claimant periodically, every quarter. The fixed deposits shall not be encashed, pledged or mortgaged."

Pursuant to the above directions while the petitioner withdrew Rs.35,000/-towards medical expenses incurred by him and Rs.25,000/- out of the amount deposited, the rest of the amounts seemed to have been kept in two FDRs. payable after expiry of 30 months and 60 months respectively. While the petitioner was allowed to withdrew the interest accrued thereon, the learned Judge observed that the fixed deposits shall not be encashed, pledged or mortgaged also, with the result after expiry of the terms specified in the order, the Tribunal is renewing the FDRs. from time to time.

The present application is filed by the petitioner seeking permission of this Court to permit him to withdraw the amounts that were kept in FDRs. both on the grounds of children education as well as for undergoing another operation for removal of steel rod that was fixed at the time of the accident and also to meet the family expenses as the became practically invalid.

I would like to go on record that the Courts should not pass orders mechanically, without reference to the facts of that case and any order passed should be in furtherance of the cause of justice. The Courts started giving directions of this nature when certain unhealthy practices have crept in the legal profession, to save the illiterate and gullible people form the exploitation of the members of the legal profession. But that cannot be made a rule of thumb for each and every case. Here is an educated man who at an young age met with an accident and became practically incapacitated to move freely like his other brethren. Naturally the employment opportunities for such a crippled men are very bleak and he has to sustain himself by taking up alternative avocation with the money awarded as compensation to mitigate the loss sustained by him because of the accident. If the Court allowed him to draw this amount, he being a better Judge how to invest his monies, he would have started same business or invested the money in some other manner which may give better returns and he would have tried to meet both ends of maintaining his family. I am of the firm opinion, that in cases where the clients cannot fall pray of the tactics adopted by members of legal profession, moreso when they are educated, the Court should not interfere, in his wisdom with regard to the investment of the monies to get maximum benefit. Be that as it may, in this case the time limit fixed by the Court for both the FDRs. have expired long back. Hence there cannot be any impediment in allowing the petitioner to withdraw the amounts deposited in the FDRs. 1 am satisfied with the reasons given by the petitioner in seeking permission of the Court for withdrawing the amounts lying in the FDRs.

Hence a direction is given to the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur, to encash the FDRs. and pay the amounts to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

CMP is accordingly disposed of.