Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -Heard Ms. Anita Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Parmatma Rai, the learned counsel for the insurance company (respondent No. 3) and the learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1.
(2.) SINCE no factual controversy is involved, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6, who are the owners of the vehicle. It transpires that the petitioner sustained grievous injury in a road accident in the year 1993 on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. As a result of this accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of three ribs, the collar bone and injuries on his face and head. The petitioner filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in which an award dated 30th April, 2002 was passed awarding a sum of Rs. 70,000 as compensation alongwith the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the incident. The Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner. It transpires that based on the aforesaid award, the insurance company deposited a sum of Rs. 1,26,115 before the Tribunal towards compensation and the interest accrued on it. Upon deposit, the petitioner applied for the release of the amount. The Tribunal, by an order dated 3rd January, 2003, directed that since the petitioner was illiterate, therefore, according to the guidelines laid by the Supreme Court, the amount was liable to be invested in the interest of the petitioner, and therefore, directed that out of Rs. 1,26,115, a sum of Rs. 26,115 would be paid to the petitioner and the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000 would be invested in a fixed deposit for 20 years, and interest accrued thereon, would be paid on a quarterly basis to the petitioner. The matter rested at that position. The petitioner subsequently filed an application on 16th November, 2007 for premature release of the amount on the ground that the marriage of his daughter was being solemnised, and that, he required the money for the said purpose and that he also required some money to carry out the repairs of his house. The said application was rejected by the Commissioner on 16.11.2007 on the ground that the earlier order of 3rd January, 2003 required no interference, and that once the amount had been invested, the same could not be released prematurely on the application of the petitioner, and that, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the earlier order dated 3.1.2003, the petitioner should have challenged the said order dated 3rd January, 2003. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Before proceeding, it would be necessary to peruse the guidelines which was issued by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushamma Thomas and others, 1994 (1) TAC 323. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted herein- 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 deposit 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 expanding 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 realization 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 a 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."
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines indicates that in case the Tribunal invested the compensation in a long term fixed deposit, the Tribunal would also consider the claim of the claimant for early withdrawal in case of an emergency under Clause (viii) of the guidelines. In Shaheen Bano v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and others, 2007 (2) TAC 755, this Court held that the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the application on the sole ground that the fixed deposit could not be encashed prematurely. The Court held that the Tribunal has to consider the bona fide purpose of the claimant for early withdrawal of the compensation and that the Tribunal could not deny the claimant on the sole ground that premature encashment could not be done.;