The court emphasized the need for thoughtful consideration of the genuine requirements of the claimant and avoidance of a mechanical approach, especially in the case of literate persons, when deciding on the investment of compensation amount in long term fixed deposits.

ORDER :

1. Mr. Nishiat A.Bhalodi, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that MACP No.1548 of 2015 was filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act on the death of the husband of claimant no.1 and father of rest of the claimants.

2. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the matter was actually filed in the year 2010 and was numbered as MACP No.176 of 2010, but since transferred to Anjar, it was renumbered as MACP No.1548 of 2015 and the judgment and award rendered on 30.11.2018, whereby the compensation of Rs.5,42,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum came to be awarded.

2.1 Mr. Bhalodi submits that the Insurance Company thereafter challenged the said order by filing First Appeal No.4947 of 2019, and by an order dated 14.10.2019, the amount was recomputed and Rs.3,82,834/- was granted, and the direction of the Tribunal was modified to the extent that, instead of granting 50% amount the apportionment was granted as 30% cash and rest of the 70% to be invested in the FDR, as indicated by the tribunal with the condition that there would be no premature withdrawal or encumbrances without the express permission from this Court.

2.2 Mr. Bhalodi submits that the application was moved before the Auxiliary Tribunal; however, it was rejected on 30.07.2022. No order on the FDR could be passed by the Tribunal, as directed in the order dated 14.10.2019 that any permission for premature withdrawal or encumbrances could only be granted by this Court.

2.3 Mr. Bhalodi submits that since 2010, the petitioners have waited for the money on the death of the sole bread winner of the family and for an expeditious redressal, the petition was filed under section 163A of the M.V. Act, and thus Mr. Bhalodi submits that the very object of section would be absolved, if the petitioners are not provided early relief and thus submitted that the order of FDR requires reconsideration, since the amount would be necessary for the family for their maintenance and other necessities. Mr. Bhalodi submits that since major five claimants have prayed for the money and as per disbursement very less amount would come in the share of each claimants and thus made prayer for permission of premature encasement of FDR.

3. Mr. Bhalodi has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of A.V. Padma & Ors. Vs. R. Venugopal & Ors., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 378, to contend that the Tribunal is required to give a thoughtful consideration to the genuine requirements of the claimant and should avoid mechanical approach ignoring the object and spirit of the Act. A.V. Padma’s case (supra) refers to the guidelines issued in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176. In Susamma Thomas’s case (supra), while approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 1982 (1) GLR 756, the Apex Court has offered the following guidelines:-

“(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be invested in long term 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 the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw, etc., to earn a living, the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money;

(iii) In the case of semiliterate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding and existing bus