SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 679

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Varshaben Wd/o Sunilbhai Maganbhai Parmar – Appellant
Versus
Manager-Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 6834 of 2024
Decided on : 26-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : NISHIT A BHALODI

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for thoughtful consideration of the genuine requirements of the claimant and avoiding a mechanical approach in granting compensation, especially in the case of literate persons.

Headnote:

EMERGENCY - Motor Accident Claim - General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176, A.V. Padma & Ors. Vs. R. Venugopal & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 378 - The court discussed the guidelines issued in the case of Susamma Thomas and A.V. Padma, emphasizing the need for thoughtful consideration of the genuine requirements of the claimant and avoiding a mechanical approach. The court highlighted the discretion given to the tribunal to exercise, especially in the case of literate persons, and the importance of considering the larger interest of the claimant and the genuine requirements of the claimants.

ORDER :

1. Mr. Nishit A.Bhalodi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that on the death of the husband, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.220 of 2018 was filed by the widow, two minors and aged parents-in-law. Mr. Bhalodi stated that the amount of Rs.16,62,640/- was ordered and accordingly insurance company deposited the compensation amount. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the Tribunal had granted 30% of the cash amount and rest of 70% was placed in the FDR in accordance to the ratio of disbursement.

2. Advocate Mr. Bhalodi further submitted that the amount has been placed in the FDR for a period of five years and the claimant being the widow and has no other source of income, wanted the money which was falling in her share for irrigation purpose, and she wanted to dig well deeper, and to bear the expenses, had made prayer for the amount, but the same came to be rejected by the Tribunal considering that the cause could not fall under the category of emergency.

3. Advocate Mr. Bhalodi has placed reliance on the judgment 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.

3.1 The case of A. V. Padma & Ors. (supra) refers to the guidelines issued in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176. In Susamma Thomas’s case (supra), while approving the judgment of this 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, 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 business or for purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii) above for earning his livelihood, in which case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid;

(iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above, subject to the relaxation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded to him thinks it necessary to do order;

(v) In the case of widows the Claims Tribunal should invariably follow the procedure set out in (i) above;

(vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment;

(vii) In all cases in which investment in long term fixed deposits is made it should be on condition that the Bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly directly

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top