Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
B.R. SARANGI, J.
Dibakar Pradhan & Another – Petitioners
Versus
Iswar Chandra Majhi & Others – Opposite Parties
W.P. (Civil) No. 17233 of 2014
Decided On : 10.09.2014
Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand by mechanically observing in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. The Tribunals are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by the Apex Court in the cases of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and even in the cases of Semi-literate and literate persons. The guidelines framed by the Apex Court are not adhered to and instead the Tribunals are adopting ritual formula, not only by directing major chunk of the compensation amount to be kept in fixed deposits, irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case but also taking a rigid stand, while considering an application seeking release of the compensation money. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merit. It is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in the routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstance the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is badly required by him. Therefore, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, the attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunal must be in pace with the object behind the guidelines of the Apex Court.
2. COMPENSATION - Award - Payment of - Observation of High Court - While passing the award and while considering the application for premature, withdrawal of the amount, the Tribunals shall follow the principles enumerated below, considering each case on its own merit instead of adopting ritualistic formula and mechanically rejecting such application.
(i) The guidelines framed in the case of Susama Thomas (supra), has to be followed in letter and spirit.
(ii) In case of old parents, the compensation, amount as far as practicable may not be insisted to be deposited in long term basis.
(iii) In case of direction given for long term fixed deposit, the Tribunal may consider for premature withdrawal of the amount taking into consideration the suffering of old age ailments, inability to earn livelihood and repayment of the loans to get rid of liability.
(Para 10)
JUDGMENT
B.R. Sarangi, J.
1. The claimants in MAC Case No. 133 of 2006 as petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 03.09.2014 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge cum M.A.C.T. Cuttack rejecting the petition for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount.
2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioners being the parents of their deceased son, who died in a motor vehicle accident, along with their daughter, filed an application before the Tribunal for grant of compensation in MAC Case No. 133 of 2006. After hearing the parties, the said MAC Case was disposed of awarding compensation in favour of the petitioners. However, learned Tribunal directed that out of the awarded compensation amount, a sum of rupees one lakh each would be kept in fixed deposit in the name of each of the petitioners for a period of six years in any Nationalized Bank. In compliance with the same, such amount was deposited with the opposite party no.3 Bank. Petitioners who are the parents of the deceased filed an application for withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- to meet the financial stringency. Therefore, that being allowed, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- remains as Fixed Deposit in the name of the petitioners in the opposite party no.3 Bank. Petitioner No.2, who is a diabetic patient, having suffered gross loss of vision needs a surgical treatment, for which she wishes to go to a specialized eye Hospital. It appears that she had undergone treatment at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and to that extent prescriptions have been enclosed to the petition. Now for further treatment since the petitioners need money, petitioners want to close the fixed deposit by way of premature withdrawal. Accordingly, they filed an application before the learned Tribunal for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit for the treatment of petitioner no.2. The learned Tribunal while passing the order dated 03.09.2014 permitted withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- out of the fixed deposit of Rs.75,000/- in respect of each of the fixed deposits of petitioners and directed that the rest amount along with interest, if any accrued shall remain as fixed deposit for the remaining period. Against the said order dated 03.09.2014, the petitioners have filed this application. They want premature withdrawal of the entire amount for the treatment of petitioner no.2.
3. Mr. Ananga Kumar Otta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously urged that the impugned order refusing to draw the entire fixed deposit amount prematurely for the treatment of petitioner no.2, is contrary to the provisions of law. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Otta relied upon the judgments in Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1992 SC 248, G.M. Kerala R.T. Corporation vs. Susama Thomas, AIR 1994 SC 1631, H.S. Ahammed vs. Irfan Ahmed, AIR 2002 SC 2483 and Smt. Joginder Kaur vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed in C.R. No. 2880 of 2011 disposed of on 20.05.2011 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
4. As no relief has been sought against the opposite parties, this Court did not choose to issue notice to the opposite parties in view of the ratio of the judgment in Smt. Joginder Kaur (supra).
5. The apex Court in a case of compensation for death evolved a principle enunciated in Union Carbide Corporation (supra) wherein it is held that:
“The matter of appropriate investments to safe guard the feed from being flittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhal Ajarambhai Harijan vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1982 (1) 23 Guj LR 756, this Court offered the following guidelines:
(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred by
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
