Saramma vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Heard Mr. Siby Mathew for the appellant. Appellant is the petitioner in the original petition. Original petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited in her name in O.P. (MV) No. 312 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha and to release the fixed deposit receipt in her name. It is seen from Exh. P1 award that a sum of Rs. 2,77,000 was awarded and that the appellant, the widow of the deceased was found entitled to get Rs. 1,17,000 with interest and cost. However, the appellant was allowed to withdraw only Rs. 30,000 and the balance amount less court fee was directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank. It is stated by the appellant that her husband was the sole breadwinner of the family and after his death the appellant and her minor children have been residing in a hut and the hut at present is almost in a dilapidated condition, the hut may collapse at any time. The appellant had approached the Tribunal for permission to withdraw the balance amount of Rs. 1,20,080 for the purpose of reconstructing the building at an approximate cost of Rs. 1,50,000. The Tribunal rejected the same by Exh. P3 order. The main reason stated in Exh. P3 is that even though the estimate and plan of the proposed construction were produced, the survey number and other details of the property in which the proposed construction was intended were not specified. However, the appellant has filed Exh. P4 sale deed in respect of the property only along with the original petition in this court. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by Exh. P3 order rejected the application filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not specified anything of the property in which the construction is intended. It is seen from the order that the appellant has not produced the title deeds and other details as to whether any construction work has commenced. The learned Tribunal in the concluding portion of its order held that the release of the fixed deposit amounts is permitted either to acquire assets and to earn a livelihood or in cases of emergency and since none of the contingencies occur in this case the compensation amount awarded cannot be released to the appellant who is the widow of the deceased, who was a headload worker.

We are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that the appellant is not entitled to release of the fixed deposit amount for the reasons stated in the concluding portion of its order is not correct.

As already stated the appellant filed the original petition for a mandamus directing the Tribunal to permit her to withdraw the amount deposited in her name and to release the fixed deposit. Along with the original petition the appellant filed Exh. P1, photocopy of the award, Exh. P2, petition filed by her before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Exh. P3, order dated 12.7.99 dismissing I.A. No. 739 of 1999, Exh. P4, photocopy of the sale deed No. 228 of 1995 dated 22.8.1995 and Exh. P5, photocopy of the receipt evidencing payment of land tax for the year 1997-98. It has been specifically stated in the original petition that during the lifetime of her husband, the appellant''s husband had purchased an extent of 10 cents of land in their joint names as per Sale Deed No. 228 of 1995 and in evidence thereof the appellant filed the sale deed which has been marked as Exh. P4. It is further stated that ever since the date of purchase the appellant has been paying the land tax and evidencing such payment for the year 1997-98 Exh. P5 has been produced and marked. Thus, according to the appellant, the appellant is the absolute owner of the 10 cents of land and, therefore, the main ground relied on by the learned Tribunal is without any basis. It is also urged that after the death of the husband the appellant is the only earning member of the family, has to look after three minor children and that they are staying in a hut which is in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, it is necessary that the appellant be allowed to withdraw the balance amount of Rs. 1,20,080 deposited in her name in the Canara Bank, Adivadu Branch as per the directions in Exh. P1 award. It is also stated that appellant is a casual labourer and has no other source of income and that she will not be able to raise funds for putting up a building with her meagre income.

We have perused the order passed. In our view, the Tribunal has not appreciated the bona fides of the claim put forward by the appellant. It is well settled principle that shelter is the basic requirement of a human being and that the appellant is entitled to withdraw the amount to meet the financial expenses required for putting up a shelter subject to her placing proof of ownership and other documents in support of her claim before the Tribunal. Of course, the appellant has not placed before the learned Tribunal the title deed and the tax receipt. Courts have held that right to life enshrined in Article 21 means something more than survival. Therefore, it includes all aspects of life which will give a meaningful, complete and worth living.

The learned Judge dismissed the original petition on the ground that the court below was not satisfied with the genuineness of the application and also on the ground of non-production of title deeds of the property.

Now that the appellant has placed before this court the title deed and receipt for payment of tax, we direct the Tribunal to reconsider the entire matter afresh on the basis of the documents now placed before us and also in the light of the official memorandum issued by this court. Office Memorandum No. DIB-4J 320/99 dated 26.7.1999 reads as follows:

Sub: Disposal of M.V.OPs-Payment of compensation amounts awarded by Tribunals to claimants-Guidelines issued-Clarifications regarding

In pursuance of the directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, instructions were issued by the High Court, in O.M. No. E3-59302/94 dated 13.3.95, to all Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State to mention in the award itself the amount to be disbursed to the claimants in cash and also the period for which the remaining part of the compensation amount is to be put in fixed deposits. The Tribunals were also directed to report to the High Court every month cases in which they have ordered disbursement of any amount beyond Rs. 5,000 in cash to claimants.

(2) Subsequently, the High Court issued certain clarifications to the instructions issued earlier, referred to supra, in O.M. No. D1-50945/96 dated 27.1.1997. It was clarified to the Presiding Officers of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals that in genuine cases, where the amount sought to be considered for payment should be more than Rs. 10,000 in cash, they shall record the reasons for such payment and furnish information of payment to the High Court along with a copy of the relevant order.

(3) The attention of the Presiding Officers of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State is invited to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Clauses (i) to (viii) in para 17 of the judgment in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, . The guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court to safeguard the interests of the claimants, in particular minors and illiterates and Ors. whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines are not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals are to take a rigid stand when considering an application seeking release of monies. The Apex Court''s orders cast the responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders, after examining each case in its own merits. The Tribunals are to exercise their discretion on a proper, just, equitable and reasonable ground.

(4) The Presiding Officers of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State are directed that in cases where they permit withdrawal of the entire/part of the compensation amount awarded, they shall record the reasons for grant of such permission and furnish information to the High Court along with a copy of the relevant order.

In the above Office Memorandum, the High Court has informed the Tribunals in the State that the guidelines are not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals are to take a rigid stand when considering an application seeking release of monies and that the Tribunals are to exercise their discretion in a proper, just and reasonable way while passing orders on applications seeking withdrawal of the entire/part of compensation amounts awarded, on just, equitable and reasonable grounds. The Presiding Officers of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State were directed that in cases where they permit withdrawal of the entire/part of the compensation amount awarded, they shall record the reasons for grant of such permission. It is seen from the order impugned in this writ appeal that the said order was passed prior to the issue of the above official memorandum dated 26.7.1999. The appellant has clearly stated the reasons for withdrawal in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. The living conditions of the appellant with her minor children appear to be very miserable. As already noticed, the hut in which the appellant is living is almost in dilapidated condition. The appellant is the only breadwinner of the family and with her meagre income she will not be able to spend any amount for the construction of the house. It is stated that she is not even able to maintain her three children and aged mother. Since the living conditions of the appellant and her minor children were very miserable, we direct the Tribunal to consider the application for withdrawal of the amount deposited, in the light of the recent official memorandum issued by this court and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity to the appellant. Article 21 of the Constitution of India requires that no one shall be deprived of his life except by procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just and not whimsical or fanciful. The right to life enshrined in Article 21 as observed by the Supreme Court cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate clothing and shelter over the head and nutrition, etc. Thus, as part of the right to live with human dignity and, therefore, as a necessary component of the right to life, the petitioner could be entitled to have shelter over her head with the members of her family. The Supreme Court also held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. We are of the view that the amount as prayed for should be available to the appellant when it is needed and no useful purpose will be served if the same is received very late. The Tribunal will now consider the entire matter afresh in the light of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court and also the official memorandum issued by this court. The Tribunal while passing order may take necessary and sufficient precautionary steps and provisions to see that the amount allowed to withdraw by the appellant is utilised for the purpose of which it is done. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and direct the Tribunal to reconsider the entire matter afresh as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. The appellant is at liberty to produce the title deeds and other supporting documents before the Tribunal for its consideration and for passing orders. Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.