Point of Law : sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment & Order dated 10.04.2019 in MAC case No.2602 of 2016. Hereafter, the appellant No. 1 shall be referred to as claimant No.1 and appellant No. 2 shall be referred to as claimant No.2.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to this appeal is that on 10.08.2016, at about 05:45 A.M, while one Tarap Ali was walking by side of the road, he was knocked down from behind by an Auto bearing registration No. AS-19-E-4214 resulting in his death on the spot. The claimants No. 1 & 2 are the son and wife of the deceased who filed an application under section 166 r/w section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The victim was carpenter-cum-cultivator alleged of having a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. The Opposite Party No.1 /United Insurance Co. Ltd., contested the case, denying the whole facts of the incident. The learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:

1. Whether on 10-08-2016, at about 05:45 A.M. at Barpeta Daulashai Road, Khongra under Tarabari Police Station, an accident has arisen due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Alto vehicle bearing registration No.AS-19-E-4214 on the part of its driver and whether the said accident has caused the death of Tarap Ali ?

2. If so, whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation, and if yes, what should be the quantum and who amongst the opposite parties, is liable to payment compensation amount?

4. Upon taking evidence adduce by the parties, both the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and the learned Tribunal passed the following Award directing the United Insurance Company Limited/respondent No.1 to

“23... make payment of Rs.9,80,056/- within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the Judgment & Order. The compensation amount shall carry an interest at the bank rate for fixed deposit from 19.01.2019 (Record reveals years back but the claimant could adduce evidence only on 10.01.2019, as such, I do not find any reason to direct the insurance company concerned to pay interest from the date of filing the claim petition) per annum and in the event of failure to make the payment within the stipulated period the compensation amount shall bear additional interest @ 1 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

24. Rs.65,056/-shall be released to the claimant No.2 the wife of the deceased to meet the immediate exigencies.

25 Rs.15,000/-shall be released to the claimant No.1, son of the deceased.

26. The claimant No.1 shall open eighteen FDRs of Rs.50,000/-each in her name in any nationalized bank for a period of one to eighteen years.

27. To meet any urgent need for money, claimant or the guardian of the minors, as the case may be, shall make application to the Tribunal for permitting withdrawal. The Tribunal shall consider the application and pass appropriate order………”

5. Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not have any grievance with regard to the compensation amount but submits that the award requires to be modified wherein the learned Tribunal has directed that at para 26 of the Judgment & Order dated 10.04.2019 that ‘the claimant No.1 shall open eighteen FDRs of Rs.50,000/- each in her name in any nationalized bank for a period of one to eighteen years. That the impugned order at para 27 has also wrongly mentioned that ‘claimant or the guardian of the minors, as the case may be, shall make application to the Tribunal for permitting withdrawal.’

6. For that the claimant No.1 is at present 26 years of age and opening eighteen FDRs in his name does not arise at all. The claimant No.2, the mother of the claimant No.1 is 38 years of age and there is no any minor dependant of the deceased victim. At the time of filing the claim petition the age of claimant No.1 and claimant No.2 were reflected as 23 & 38 years respectively. That the learned tribunal ha