Rameshwar Lal and Others vs Union of India (UOI)

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This order shall dispose of three appeals bearing FAO No. 1262 of 2010 (Rameshwar Lal and Ors. v. Union of India); FAO No. 1263 of 2010 (Veena Kumari and Ors. v. Union of India) and FAO No. 2057 of 2010 (Sow Parkash v. Union of India) as question involved in these appeals are similar because the appellants in all the three appeals have prayed for release of the amount of compensation awarded in their favour which has been ordered to be deposited by the Tribunal in Fixed Deposit in some Nationalized Bank.

In FAO 1262 of 2010 (Rameshwar Lal and Ors. v. Union of India), claim petition was filed by the husband and sons of Smt. Sushi la Devi (since deceased) who died in an untoward incident occurred on 16.9.2008. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, ''the Tribunal'') allowed the claim petition vide its order dated 15.2.2010 and awarded of Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% to the claimants from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 30.12.2008 till the date of the award and further @ 9% per annum from the date of award till its realization. Out of the total award, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was ordered to be paid to the husband of the deceased and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each to the applicants Nos. 2 to 5 (the minor sons of the deceased). However, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- out of Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded to the husband of the deceased, was ordered to be kept in a fixed deposit in his favour in some Nationalized Bank for a period of two years with liberty to him to withdraw quarterly interest thereon and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be paid to him immediately. Similarly, the amount of compensation payable to the minor sons was also ordered to be kept in a fixed deposit in their favour in some Nationalized Bank for a period of two years with liberty to their guardian to withdraw quarterly interest thereon.

In FAO No. 1263 of 2010 (Veena Kumari and Ors. v. Union of India), the claimants are widow and sons of Sanjeev Kumar (since deceased) who is alleged to have died in an untoward incident occurred on 3.2.2008. The Tribunal allowed the claim application and awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 21.5. 2008 till the date of the award and further @ 9% per annum from the date of award till its realization. Out of the aforesaid amount, Veena Kumari (widow) was awarded Rs. 2,00,000/-, whereas minor daughter Parul was ordered to be paid Rs. 1,00,000/- and the other two sons namely, Vishu Narula and Sandeep Kumar were ordered to get Rs. 50,000/- each. Out of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded to the widow, Rs. 1,50,000/- was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in her favour in some Nationalized Bank for a period of two years with liberty to her to withdraw quartely interest thereon and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be paid to her immediately, whereas in respect of other claimants i.e. minor children, the amount was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in their favour in some Nationalized Bank for a period of two years or till their attaining the age of majority. However, their mother (Veena Kumari) was given liberty to withdraw quarterly interest on said fixed deposits for the maintenance and day to day expenses of the minors.

In FAO No. 2057 of 2010 (Sow Parkash v. Union of India), claim petition was filed by Som Parkash, who is alleged to have received injuries in an untoward incident occurred on 5.1.2009 for which he was awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application i.e. 27.4.2009 till the date of the award and further @ 9% per annum from the date of the award till its realization. However, out of the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in his favour in some Nationalised Bank for a period of two years with liberty to him to withdraw quartely interest thereon and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid to him immediately.

Admittedly, appellants in FAO No. 1262 of 2010 are major. In FAO No. 1263 of 2010, appellant No. 1 is major and in FAO No. 2057 of 2010, the sole appellant is major in accordance with the Indian Majority Act, 1875.

The basic feature of grievance in the aforesaid appeals is the order of the Tribunal in directing a sizable amount of compensation awarded to the major/adults to be kept in fixed deposit for a fixed period.

Mr. Namit Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the amount awarded by way of compensation to an adult/major cannot be ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit. He has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain and Another Vs. Irfan Ahammed and Another, and a decision of this Court in the case of Asraf Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Others, in this regard.

Notice of motion was issued.

Mr. J.C. Marwaha, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent/Union of India and submitted that the respondent has no objection if the amount awarded to the appellants is released by this Court. He could not cite any judgment contrary to those rendered by the Supreme Court in H.S. Ahammed Hussain (supra) and by this Court in Asraf (supra).

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

It is now well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Ahammed (supra) that amount of compensation awarded to an adult cannot be ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit. Similarly, this Court also took the view in the case of Asraf (supra) that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order for deposit of the amount of compensation in fixed deposit in case where the claimant is major.

However, this Court is flooded with such type of appeals where only prayer is for release of amount awarded to an adult, which is ordered by the Tribunal to be deposited in a fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a fixed term. This Court is constrained to observe that despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in the case of H.S. Ahammed (supra), has authoritatively held that in case of an adult, it is not proper to order the amount of compensation to be deposited in fixed deposit and the law laid down by the Supreme Court is to be followed by the Courts and Tribunal all over India in view of Article 141 of the constitution of India but the Tribunal appears to be adament in passing the same order time and again breeding unnecessary litigation, causing heavy financial loss to the poor litigants, an extra avoidable burden on this Court and wasting time of this Court in doing so despite a long queue of citizens waiting for justice. In this process, their queue will become longer and their misery shall multiply without any compensating benefit to the cause of justice. Therefore, while allowing these appeals, the Tribunal is directed to release the amount to the major/adults forthwith which has been ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit. The Tribunal is further advised not to pass such orders which is offending the orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court lest it is considered otherwise.

With the aforesaid directions, these appeals are disposed of.

A copy of this order be sent to the Railway Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.