AJARAMBHAI AND MULJIBHAI ANR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Motor Accident Claim Application No. 453 of 1978 the Claims Tribunal at Nadiad awarded a sum of Rs.14,000/- with proportionate cost and interest at 6 % per annum from the date of the claim application till payment or realisation to the parents of the unfortunate victim of the accident .The Claims Tribunal further directed that the amount should be divided equally between the claimants. Against the-said award made by the Claims Tribunal First Appeal No. 775 of 198o has been preferred and the same has been admitted to hearing. In the said appeal on the Civil Application an act interim stay was granted on condition that the appellants deposit -the entire amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the Tribunal within four weeks from the said order. We were told by Mr. N. S. Desai the learned Advocate, appealing for the original claimants, that pursuant to the said order the amount, of Rupee's 14,000/- together with interest and proportionate cost has been deposited in the Claims- Tribunal. He, therefore, by this Civil Application moved on behalf of the original claimants seeks leave to withdraw the said amount deposited in the Claims Tribunal.

(2.) In this Civil Application, it is stated that the applicants original claim ants are poor person, and they are in need of money. However, their need has not been spelt out. Applicant appears 'to know how to sign his name, but so far as applicant is concerned, she has put her thumb mark which is not attested by Any one. Both the applicants are Harijans ' And they' appear to be illiterate persons, Amittedly, they are poor persons and, therefore. It is reasonable to infer that they must not have dealt with such a substantial amount like Rupees 14,000/-, interest and cost at any point of time throughout their lives * It is, therefore, too much to expect any financial discipline in the lives of the present applicants. We should have thought that the Claims Tribunal ought to have made some provision for the investment of the amount awarded to them so that the same may not be squandered away or lost to the applicants. In cases such as the present one the paramount consideration of the Claims Tribunal must be to protect the interest of such claimant, so that the amount awarded to them by way of compensation serves the, purpose. And object of recompensing them for the loss occasioned by the tragedy of the accident. If the Tribunal fails to protect such claimants and if the amount awarded to them is frittered -away the very object of Awarding compensation will be defeated. One of the ways of protecting such applicants is to direct investment of the amount awarded to them so that they may receive a steady income from the investment and the corpus may remain intact.

(3.) We are distressed to note that Claims Tribunals do not realise that "it is not sufficient to award compensation to, the victim of the, accident or his 1egal representatives, as the case may be. But it is also its duty to ensure that the amount awarded is not frittered away. It just be remembered that lump sum compensation is Paid to the claimants who are either the victims of' the accident or their legal representatives by applying an appropriate, multiplier with a way to providing for his or their future. In other words, instead of spreading out the amount of compensation over a number of years having regard to the estimated future life span, as a. measure of convenience, lump sum 'payment its ordered. If the whole or substantial part of the compensation money is paid to claimants who have never handled such huge amounts in their lives there is the danger of their frittering away the amount for want of fiscal discipline in their lives. If the amount is squandered away, which in all, probability may happen the socioeconomic objective intended to be achieved by the award of compensation will be wholly defeated. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in such cases it is imperative on the Claims Tribunal to protect such claimants, no matter they are adults, by directing the investment of lump sum compensation awarded to them. We are therefore, not pressed by Mr. Desai's submission that since another Division Bench had in another appeal arising, out of the common award directed 50% of the amount to be paid without security and the remaining 50% after furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. We should, make the same order in this Application also. The nature of the interim order to be made must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But we think that by And large if the Claim's Tribunals bear in mind the interest Of the claimants and direct that substantial amount out of the compensation award ed to the claimants is deposited in a Scheduled Bank in a Iona term Axed deposit, the' Tribunals will be rendering service to claimants, many of whom may not have handled such substantial lump sums in - their lifetime and may find themselves unable to decide how best they should deal with the amount awarded to them. We think that. If this fact is borne in mind by the Claims Tribunals the claimants will be placed in happier situation because they will receive a steady income on their investment with the corpus remaining intact.