1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.20785 OF 2021(GM-AC)

BETWEEN:

SARITA PRAKASH BHAT,

W/O PRAKASH ANANT BHAT,

AGED 40 YEARS,

R/AT NO.25, 14^TH MAIN,

JUDICIAL LAYOUT,

GKVK POST,

BENGALURU – 560 065.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P N HARISH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-C DATED 07.10.2021 PASSED BY

MEMBER PRINCIPAL MOTO ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BENGALURU (PRL MACT) IN MVC NO.5036/2017 ON THE

APPLICATION OF THE PETITONER FILED U/S 151 OF CPC AS

PER ANNEXURE-B AND ALLOW THE SAME.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

2

ORDER

Petitioner – claimant in MVC No.5036/2017 had

obtained an award for a compensation of Rs.12,35,800/-

with interest; the award dated 31.01.2020 had stipulated

50% of the award amount being parked in a Fixed Deposit

in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years;

petitioner had moved with an application before the MACT

seeking relaxation from the said condition; the application

having been negatived by the MACT, Bengaluru City, vide

order dated 07.10.2021, he is knocking at the doors of

Writ Court.

2.

Learned AGA on request, having accepted

notice for the State, opposes the writ petition contending

that the MACT is a statutory body and it will have

accumulated wisdom in matters of the kind; where wisdom

& discretion are exercised, Writ Court should keep away

from examining the product of such exercise; in support of

his contention, he banks upon the Apex Court decision

SADHANA LODH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LTD., & ANOTHER, (2003) 3 SCC 524.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court

3

is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the

following reasons:

a) The stipulation as to a portion of the compensation

amount being parked in a Fixed Deposit has an underlying

philosophy namely, i.e., the entire amount if given to the

claimants in terms of the award unconditionally, the

corpus may be last because of imprudent investments or

expenditures; such things more often than not do happen

where parties are illiterates, and lack the prudent decision

making; however, stipulating such a condition of such

stipulation cannot be considered as ever mandatory in

every award; Court can presume the prudence of persons

and that it is for them to decide what they should do with

their money which is their property, subject to all just

exceptions as rightly argued by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

b) Petitioner’s counsel is more than justified in

banking upon the decision of the Apex Court in

A.V.PADMA Vs. R. VENUGOPAL & OTHERS, (2012) 3.

SCC 378, wherein para 4 reads as under:

“In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this

Court issued certain guidelines in order to

"safeguard the feed from being frittered away by

the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and

4

susceptibility to exploitation". Even as per the

guidelines issued by this Court, long term fixed

deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory

only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants

and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants,

the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request

for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of

any movable property such as agricultural

implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living.

However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make

sure that the amount is actually spent for the

purpose and the demand is not a ruse to

withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate

claimants, the Tribunal should ordinar