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

2024 Supreme(All) 557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Aidal Singh and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 31515 of 2023
Decided On : 26-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Om Prakash Rai, Ashish Rai.

Headnote:

Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicle Act, Section 166 - Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - The court discussed the application of Rule 220-B and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sushamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (1) TAC 323, and A.V. Padma and Others vs. R. Venugopal and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 378. The court found that the tribunal's order directing further investment in Fixed Deposit was not justified and quashed the order.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition challenged the orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directing part release of compensation awarded in a claim petition and further investment of the remaining amount in a Fixed Deposit. The claimants, parents and siblings of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which was allowed by the tribunal. The High Court partially allowed the First Appeal From Order, and the Insurance Company deposited the entire amount before the Claims Tribunal. The claimants then moved applications for release of a portion of the compensation for the marriage of their daughters, which were rejected by the tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the tribunal's order directing further investment in Fixed Deposit was not justified and quashed the order. The petitioners were entitled to the release of the amount as prayed by them, and the tribunal was directed to release the amount and the accrued interest immediately upon receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Issues: The issues involved the tribunal's decision to direct further investment of the remaining compensation amount in a Fixed Deposit and the petitioners' application for release of a portion of the compensation for the marriage of their daughters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sushamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (1) TAC 323, and A.V. Padma and Others vs. R. Venugopal and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 378, to determine the appropriate treatment of the compensation amount. The court found that the tribunal's order directing further investment in Fixed Deposit was not justified and quashed the order.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioners were entitled to the release of the amount as prayed by them. The tribunal was directed to release the amount and the accrued interest immediately upon receipt of the certified copy of the order.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 05.06.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar in Misc. Case No. 545 of 2023 and 555 of 2023 directing for part release of the compensation awarded in claim petition i.e. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 468 of 2015 and directing the remaining amount to be invested in a Fixed Deposit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that one Ganpat Singh son of Aidal Singh died in a road accident on 19.08.2015 at about 08:00 P.M. involving fortuner Car No. UP-81-CB 7686. Claim petition No. 468 of 2015 was filed by the claimants i.e. parents of the deceased Ganpat Singh along with two unmarried sisters and one brother of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The aforesaid claim petition was allowed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Bulandshahar vide its award dated 24.10.2017. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,39,000/- to be paid by the Insurance Company along with an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the application. The claimant nos. 3, 4 & 5 who were sisters and brother of the deceased Ganpat Singh were held not entitled for compensation by the tribunal as they were not dependent upon the deceased Ganpat Singh. Parents of the deceased Ganpat Singh i.e. claimant nos. 1 & 2 were given compensation in equal shares. The tribunal vide award dated 24.10.2017 directed for a payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to each of the claimants i.e. claimant nos. 1 & 2 and directed that the remaining amount shall be deposited in a nationalized bank having maximum interest.

4. The claimants filed First Appeal From Order No. 264 of 2018 (Premwati and Others vs. Ikbal and Others) before the High Court challenging the judgment and award dated 24.10.2017 and has also claimed the enhancement of compensation. The aforesaid F.A.F.O. was allowed in part by this Court by judgment dated 22.02.2022. The High Court awarded the compensation of Rs. 23,65,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

5. The Insurance Company in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 264 of 2018, deposited the entire amount before the Claims Tribunal.

6. The petitioner no. 1, Aidal Singh moved an application on 03.05.2023 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for payment of F.D.R. No. 961094 of Rs. 2,97,300/- dated 24.02.2023 along with interest to the petitioner no. 1 on the ground that the marriage of his daughter is to be held on 11.06.2023. The aforesaid application was registered as Misc. Case No. 555 of 2023. A similar application was also moved by the petitioner no. 2 regarding F.D.R. No. 961093 of Rs. 2,97,300/- dated 24.02.2023 on the ground of settlement of marriage of her daughter Km. Vimlesh. The aforesaid application was registered as Misc. Case No. 554 of 2023. In support of their claim, the petitioners also annexed the marriage card.

7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar by its two separate orders dated 05.06.2023 in Misc. Case No. 554 of 2023 & 555 of 2023 directed for release of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of each of the claimant/petitioner and has further directed that the remaining amount shall be reinvested in a new Fixed Deposit. Being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tribunal has erred in law in not releasing the amount of F.D.R. in favour of the claimants/petitioners and the direction for further deposit of the remaining amount in Fixed Deposit is wholly arbitrary. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of the petitioner Ganpat Singh died in the year 2015 and at that time the petit

          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