The court emphasized the importance of lawful and compassionate handling of compensation disbursement, considering the claimant's circumstances and needs.

Order (ORAL)

ARUN MONGA, J.

CM-6417-CII-2022

This is an application for condoning the delay of 3 years & 139 days in filing the present revision on the ground that petitioner being old widowed lady, having no source of income and also suffering from various ailments, was not aware about the proceedings/passing of impugned order.

Per registry report, respondents have been served, yet none appears for them.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of case, the application is allowed. Delay stands condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

Main case

Impugned herein is what is stated to be an erroneous approach adopted by learned Tribunal below in passing the directions to pay only an amount of Rs.3 Lakh out of total compensation of Rs.9,08,700/- to claimant/petitioner vide Award dated 21.09.2018 (Annexure P-4), who is widow of victim who lost his life in accident in question and remaining amount has been ordered to be kept in the shape of Fixed Deposit Receipts which is to be matured on 19.06.2023.

2. Whether or not such a course could have been adopted is the limited question for determination.

3. Controversy in hand is no more res integra. Reference may be had to a judgment rendered by Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (as he then was in this Court) in Parminder Singh vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 2 RCR(Civ) 126 wherein a similar situation arose and deprecating such approach on the part of learned Tribunal it was, thus, observed :

“5. This revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution [there being no other remedy] arising out of the execution proceedings to recover the balance amount. The entire compensation has been deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The question of disbursement of the remaining sum adjudicated remains as a grievance in this appeal pending payment. Mere deposit without access to money is no good for the petitioner. He needs the money now. Counsel says the money cannot be held back for any reason whatsoever so that, one day, it does not form part of a heritable estate of the claimant after his demise. There is in essence the simple request. But what are the impediments to hold it back, even when the Tribunal recognizes the right in the order to receive the balance amount as decreed?

6. The Tribunal by its impugned order dated 16.12.2019 has held otherwise, holding that the application dated 19.09.2019 (Annex P-4) filed post-judgment of the Supreme Court claiming disbursement of the amount, observing in its order 15.10.2019, as follows:

"After going through the settled law, this Tribunal is the view that certainly the applicant/claimant has right to get the amount released pre-maturely but for the said purpose, he has to move appropriate application mentioning the purpose for which the amount is required and after considering the facts of the case, the application will be decided while keeping in view the interest of the applicant.

On perusal of the application, it is clear that prayer has not been made in the application for pre-mature release of FDR but it has been pleaded that condition of depositing of the amount of compensation in the FDR for two years imposed by the learned Tribunal vide Award dated 25.01.2013 has already been completed, so the amount has been wrongly deposited in the FDR. It is clear from the record that no fresh condition has been imposed for deposit of the amount of compensation in the FDR but only in pursuance to the directions given in Award dated 25.01.2013, the amount has been deposited in the FDR on 13.09.2019, so the said FDR will mature on 12.09.2021.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant requested for granting two weeks’ time to go through the other judgments on this point and further submitted that he will address arguments after through the said judgments.

On request, case is adjourned to 02.11.2019 for further proceedings."

7. If this is the line of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, it must go back to the learning curve back to la