V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) Award have been passed in favour of the petitioners and pursuant to the said award directives have been issued for investing the amount in question in Fixed Deposit in some Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and further claimants would not be entitled to awarded amount and will not be entitled to take any loan and not create any charge on the same for the said period. Petitioners have contend that in spite of the fact amount in question had been deposited earlier the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal get Fixed Deposit made after considerable delay, as period of such Fixed Deposit ought to be computed for a period of three years from the date of the award and as such prayer made for premature encashment of FDRs by petitioners were liable to be accepted and order which has been made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal refusing to accord premature encashment is legally unsustainable.
(2.) Before proceedings to advert to the request made on behalf of the petitioners guidelines given in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others reported in 1994 A.C.J. 1 : 1994 (1) T.A.C. 323 (S.C.) , is to be looked into. Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted below : "The Claims Tribunal while awarding compensation in accident cases should bear in mind the following guidelines ; (i) The claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposited 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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however, be allowed to be withdrawn : (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for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 ruse to withdraw money. (iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out in (i) above unless it is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expending any 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 realisation 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 so 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 an 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 contigency 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." All these guidelines are to be kept in mind by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while passing the award and while making arrangement in favour of the claimant and also further give sufficient guidelines and as to what way and manner same is withdrawal is answered, the same has to be dealt with.
(3.) Various applications are coming forward before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with request of premature encashment of the amount in question and said applications are being decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by mentioning that as there is positive directions in the award as such amount in question cannot be prematurely encashed. Said approach is not correct approach as there can be premature encashment of F.D.R. subject to condition that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal satisfied itself that the amount in question is really needed for bona fide purposes, and said amount would be really used for bona fide purposes. At this stage observations made in the case of Mukhtyarbi v. Prithvipal Singh, reported in 2002 A.C.J. 1750 of Madhya Pradesh High Court para-10 is of use wherein categorical observations have been made that needy person should not be turned out of the Court on flimsy grounds and in case there is bona fide need then same shall be adverted to. Para-10 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted below : "This Court is again reiterating the view that such petitions should not be dismissed in such a way. The Tribunal should satisfy itself that the amount is realty needed for a bona fide purpose and the said amount is really used for that bona fide purpose. If the amount is not used for the bona fide purpose then not only the petitioner but the person presenting the petition would be put to moral obligation to answer the Court in satisfactory way. This practice can be used for the purpose of preventing extravagant expenses and utilisation of the said amount, but the needy persons should not be turned out of the Court on filmsy grounds and the grounds which are not sufficiently supported by a good reasoning. Thus, the order which is put to challenge is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to move another application supported by necessary documents which would satisfy the Tribunal for its genuine need in addition to one undertaking in writing sworn by affidavit that the said amount would be used for the purpose of purchasing the house which the widow Mukhtyarbi wants to purchase for living safely under its roof. The Tribunal is directed to have a broader approach in this manner as well as in all matters which would be coming in future before it. In satisfy itself the Tribunal should be circumspect well informed by human experience and reality of life. Ivory tower approach has to be discarded.";