The court emphasized the need for the tribunal to exercise discretion and consider the genuine requirements of the claimant, especially in the case of literate persons, and not mechanically order investment in long term FDRs.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner No. 1 (Ushaben Dharmeshbhai Kapadiya)-original claimant aggrieved by the order below Exhibit I in M.A.C.M.A. No. 693 of 2022 (in MACP No. 1322 of 2011) dated 17.09.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Vadodara has filed the present petition.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim submits that the petitioner had preferred an application before the learned Tribunal seeking disbursement of the amount invested in her name in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) enumerating the facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. for release of the house from the mortgage payment, medical expenses as well as interest accrued on loan and investment in Beauty Parlour business. It is submitted that the necessary documents were produced in support of the application and the learned Tribunal granted Rs. 9,04,650/- to the petitioner herein initially the amount, i.e. Rs. 21,10,850/- was ordered to be invested in a FDR for a period of 5 years. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has produced a copy of the FDR No. 0428217 at Annexure F of the petition, (Page 60). This Annexure suggests that Rs. 21,10,850/- was placed in FDR in the name of the petitioner herein. However, it is submitted that said amount was necessary for the releasing the house from mortgage, payment of medical expenses, for payment of the interest on the loan and investments for the Beauty Parlour business. A claim was made before the learned Tribunal for premature encashment of the FDR and the same came to be partly allowed and an amount of Rs. 9,04,650/- was ordered to be transferred through NEFT/RTGS after proper verification and identification and rest of the amount, i.e. Rs. 12,10,850/- was ordered to be placed in the FDR in the name of the petitioner No. 1 herein for a minimum period of 5 years.

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that after the death of the earning member of the family, i.e. the husband of the petitioner, all the women members i.e. the mother-in-law and minor child and the petitioner as a widow continued to reside with the family and had shouldered the responsibility of maintaining themselves and in the course for financial sustenance, the house came to be mortgaged and loans were taken for the Beauty Saloon business and since the amount is now available to the petitioner for paying of the dues and thus prayed to release the FDR. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered this aspect and should also have considered the genuiness of the application since no prayer was made for releasing the amount lying in the FDR’s of the mother-in-law and minor child.

4. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma and Others vs. R. Venugopal and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 378 stipulates 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 vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, (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. 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, et