- (1.) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar has in proceedings initiated by a claim petition presented under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 awarded compensation to the parents, widow and the minor daughter of decedent Ram Niwas on account of his death in a motor accident caused by culpable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. A total sum of Rs. 11.45 lacs has been awarded to the claimants in the ratio of 5:10:50:35 with interest @ 8% per annum to the father, mother, widow and the child of Ram Niwas respectively and in that order. The amounts stand deposited in their names in the form of FDRs in a nationalized bank for a year and in the case of the minor, till attaining the age of majority, whichever is later. The tribunal ordered that the parents would be entitled to apply for early payment in case of emergency or necessity vide directions issued in the award made on 1st March, 2013. A joint application was filed on 27th March, 2014 by the father, mother and widow of the decedent, the sole bread-winner. An early withdrawal of the money for personal use was made to discharge heavy debts incurred by the family who were under an obligation to repay them. Besides, the three applicants had no independent source of income to tide over their problems and daily needs. They prayed that they required 50% of the awarded amount each in cash against FDRs either as loan or by release in cash.
(2.) The Tribunal vide order dated 27th March, 2014 has allowed the prayer of the father and the mother of the decedent on account of "old age". In the application, the ages of the father and mother are recorded as 55 and 48 years respectively. However, the Tribunal has denied release of amount in favour of the widow in cash at this stage for the only reason that the prayer of the father and mother has been allowed and that seems enough relief. This Court finds the reason of denial to the widow as irrelevant. If the money was released to the parents that alone is not sufficient ground to deny the claim of the widow. It is also strange that in the application, the prayer was limited to release of 50% of the awarded amount to the three and against that request the tribunal has permitted release of full amount for which extent no reason has been assigned. If the tribunal was so large-hearted towards the parents, it could have easily shown a little more sympathy and compassion for the widow in grief, whose money it was without doubt, by ordering release of the amount claimed by her instead of making her run around spending money to come to this Court without any valid reason except that there was an order against her which could only be undone by a superior Court. It is a matter of some surprise that a Judicial Officer manning a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should apply such susceptible reasoning in making an order which appears both incorrect on facts as to recording of 'old age', which were not in and by granting prayers beyond their requests in the application for early release of money. It is however not for this Court to now reduce the amount to the one claimed as it probably stands disbursed to the father and mother of the decedent. Even if it were not disbursed for any reason, it should not be now ordered and the money regurgitated into bank accounts. If the reasoning applied by the Tribunal in releasing the amount in the percentages awarded to each of the two claimants is accepted in favour of the parents, then it follows sequitur that the petitioning widow should not be denied her prayer for release of her money, their interest being sui juris.
(3.) Resultantly, this court has hardly any option but to set aside the order dated 27th March, 2014 brought to this Court by the hands of the widow and to direct the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar to release the amount to the widow, the petitioner before this Court to be paid to her through account transfer, in case the petitioner has a bank account and if not, then by cash since the money belongs to the widow as per her share apportioned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal should not act as an investment banker unless it had satisfied itself in the beginning as to the judicial parameters set in protection of the weak from possible exploitation resulting from illiteracy or semi-illiteracy, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of society to which the claimants belong with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded. But such an exercise has not been undertaken by the Tribunal and nor did it make any endeavour to call upon the claimants to file an additional affidavit in support of the application to examine the case for early release of money prematurely in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 2 SCC 176 which are reproduced below as a reminder and for further guidance as the Supreme Court intended that the guidelines should be born in mind by the tribunals in the cases of award of monetary compensation in accident cases : - "...It is also necessary to bear in mind that even in respect of the claimants who are sui juris, their interests, if they are illiterate or semi-literate, must also be protected from possible exploitation. 23. In a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v., 1991 4 SCC 584, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.] this Court offered the following guidelines: (188 Guj LR pp. 759-60) "(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be 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 (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 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 and 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 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." These guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases. However it may be noticed that after two decades of the pronouncement in Sussama Thomas case financial awareness has grown in quantum leaps even among the vulnerable lower strata of society who are in a much stronger position today to order their lives according to their needs by warding off exploitation by man. The banking regime has undergone a complete transformation and its access in the remotest parts of India is deep and pervasive. A claimant is not required to live within the jurisdiction of the tribunal that awarded the compensation so that it can easily walk to its portals. A claimant may reside across the sub continent. The value of money has fallen considerably and amounts which looked unscalable are a far cry today. Money in the hands of claimants as of now will lose value rapidly making money of tomorrow without real content as it will buy less. Profligate spending by the claimants is hard to guard in court. It is ultimately their personal business and choice unless there is a distinct possibility of a reduction in the amount of compensation by reason of a perverse award induced by fraud or corruption, then the court or the successor tribunal may well act accordingly denying partial release to the extent of doubt or when the award is under serious challenge. However, the court and tribunal must at all times steadfastly protect the interests of minors who have lost a parent and continue to do so till they mature by reaching the age of majority. It is much too late to speculate on these questions because the Tribunal has acted in favour of two of the claimants and denied compensation to the third in a joint application and by a common order without underlining any intelligible differentia for this court to weigh and appreciate in making a final decision or an order.;