- (1.) Petitioners husband had died in accident. Petitioner had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 95 of 2009, Smt. Champta Rani alias Phoolmati and Ors. v. Nanhey Lal and Ors. wherein Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has passed award on 15.4.2010. Operative portion of the said award reads as follow: The claim petition is partly allowed and the claimants are awarded a sum of Rs. 3,45,006 compensation. They would get simple interest @ 6% per annum on this amount with effect from 23.5.2009 till final payment. The total amount of compensation together with interest would be paid by the Opposite Party No. 3 within one month from today. The claimants No. 2 to 8 would get Rs. 34,000 each and remaining amount and the interest accrued on the total sum would be payable to claimant No. 1, 50% of which would be invested in nationalized bank for three years and the remaining would be paid in cash. The share of minor claimants be invested in fixed deposit with the nationalized bank and would be paid in cash to them on attaining the age of majority.
(2.) Petitioner submits that pursuant to order in question amount in question has been deposited and further submits that as far as directives given in the award for making fix deposits in favour of children in question said portion of the award is complied with. Petitioner has stated that she is in great financial constrain, in such a situation and in this background Petitioner submits that for balance amount she should not be forced to get fix deposit created, Petitioner submits that she moved an application before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for waiving the said condition and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in mechanical manner rejected the said application without considering her genuine grievance. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed.
(3.) The guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors., 1994 1 TAC 323, are being looked into. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: (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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however be allowed to be withdrawn ; (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (1) above, but if lump sum payment is required for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 an 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 (1) 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 out in (i) above; (vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is necessary the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment; (vii) In all cases in which Investment in long term fixed deposits is made it should be on condition that the Bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be; (viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of an emergency. To meet with such a contingency, if the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims Tribunal may invest it in more than one fixed deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R. can be liquidated.;