The Tribunal should exercise discretion and consider the genuine requirements of claimants, avoiding a mechanical approach in premature encashment of compensation.

ORDER :

ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 18700 OF 2022, 18701 OF 2022, 18703 OF 2022 AND 18704 OF 2022

1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Kushal A. Desai, who submits that Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2 of 2022 was instituted on the basis that on 01.12.2001, the husband of the claimant No. 1 and father of other claimants were traveling in a Jeep bearing Registration No. GJ-17-A-8764 as occupants. The respondent No. 1 was driving the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and at about 16.30 hours, when the Jeep was passing through the outskirts of Village Rachva, it turned turtle due to excessive speed and the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the Claim Petition was re-numbered as M.A.C.P. No. 506 of 2017 and came to be decided on 20.07.2019. The petition remained pending for long period of time, i.e. 17 years, 6 months and 19 days. The widow was looking after her three children and maintained them without any monetary support, since the compensation amount could not be decided earlier.

3. It is further submitted that as per the judgment and award on 20.07.2019, Rs. 3,55,120/- was granted together with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Accordingly, the amount was disbursed in the ratio of 30% - 70% qua claimants No. 1 to 5 and the ratio of the amount fell in the share of claimant No. 6, being a minor was deposited in the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for a period of 5 years or till the minor attains majority.

4. It is also submitted that since the claimants are residing together and since their house is very old they would like to get the same renovated and they have prayed for premature encashment of the FDR lying in their name, which was deposited as per the order of the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the petitioner had produced the House Tax Receipt, Copy of assessment by Panchayat, estimate for construction and copy of the proposed building plan. Inspite of that, the learned Tribunal disagreed to believe it observing that the documents did not prove that the house of the petitioners is in a dilapidated condition and requires renovation/reconstruction.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the observations of the Tribunal dated 19.07.2022 made in MACMA No. 33 of 2022 to 37 of 2022 and has submitted that the observations are unusual which is not even in accordance with any of pleadings of the petitioners or even on the facts noted in the Motor Accident Claims Petition. It is therefore, submitted that the rejection is bad in law since it is on inconsistent observations and the M.A.C.P. was on the basis of death of deceased and not on injured claimants. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken care to refer to the facts of the application rather has out-rightly rejected the application. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the date of filing of the petition which was in the year 2002 and in the year 2022, the petitioners have claimed for premature encashment of the FDR on the ground for renovating and re-constructing the dilapidated house.

6. The claimants No. 1 to 5 of M.A.C.P. No. 506 of 2017 (Old M.A.C.P. No. 2 of 2022) have prayed for premature encashment of the FDR on the ground of construction of the dilapidated house. Today, the petitioner appearing in the each/respective petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 18700 of 2022 - Badliben Ditiabhai Palas, Special Civil Application No. 18701 of 2022 - Javsingbhai Ditiabhai Palas, Special Civil Application No. 18703 of 2022 - Savinsingbhai Ditiabhai Palas and Special Civil Application No. 18704 of 2022 - Rajubhai Ditiabhai Palas are present before this Court.

7. An additional A