The court emphasized that fixed deposits for compensation should only be mandated when necessary to protect vulnerable claimants from exploitation, particularly minors and illiterates.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral):- CM-15862-CII-2024 in FAO-4331-2024

CM-15878-CII-2024 in FAO-4332-2024

CM-15907-CII-2024 in FAO-4337-2024

CM-15916-CII-2024 in FAO-4341-2024

CM-15884-CII-2024 in FAO-4334-2024

CM-15889-CII-2024 in FAO-4336-2024

CM-15910-CII-2024 in FAO-4338-2024

CM-15914-CII-2024 in FAO-4340-2024

CM-15922-CII-2024 in FAO-4342-2024

CM-15886-CII-2024 in FAO-4335-2024

These are applications filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 264 days (in FAO-4331-2024), 26 days in (FAO-4332-2024), 26 days (in FAO-4337-2024), 26 days (in FAO-4341 2024), 85 days (in FAO-4334-2024), 331 days (in FAO-4336-2024), 110 days (in FAO-4338-2024), 705 days (in FAO-4340-2024), 192 days in (FAO-4342-2024) and 140 (in FAO-4335-2024) in filing the instant appeals.

For the reasons recorded in the applications, this Court is satisfied that the applicants/appellants has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present applications are allowed. Delay in filing the instant appeals is hereby condoned.

Main Appeals

In all these appeals, the claimants are aggrieved of the part of the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby 90% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal has been ordered to be invested in the Fixed Deposit for a period of three years.

2. This Court is flooded with these appeals as the RCT, Chandigarh Bench is passing similar directions in every case.

3. The issue of safeguarding the interest of the destitute who receive compensation in the claims has repeatedly concerned the Courts. Constitutional Courts have time and again issued guidelines invoking ‘doctrine of parens patriae’. The Apex Court in the case of Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 approved of principles enunciated by Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Muljibhai vs. United India Insurance Co. Limited (1982) 23 (1) Gujarat Law Reporter 756 governing disbursal of compensation amounts to the victims. The said principles were reiterated for disbursal of compensation to the victims in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas and others, 1994(2) PLR 01 and certain guidelines were issued to the Tribunals, which read as under:

“(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 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 rouge to withdraw money;

(iii) In the case of semi-literate 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