MULJIBHAI AJARAMBHAI HARIJAN Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Motor Accident Claim Application No. 453 of 1978 the Claims Tribunal at Nadiad awarded a sum of Rs. 14 0 with proportionate cost and interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till payment or realisation to the parents of the unfor- tunate 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 1980 has been preferred and the same has been admitted to hearing. In the said appeal on the Civil Application an ad-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. were told by Mr. N. S. Desai the learned Advocate appearing for the original claimants that pursuant to the said order the amount of Rs. 14 0 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 claimants are poor persons and they are in need of money. However their need has not been spelt out. Applicant No. 1 appears to know how to sign his name but so far as applicant No. 2 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. Admittedly they are poor persons and therefore it is reasonable to infer that they must not have dealt with such a substantial amount like Rs. 14 0 interest and cost at any point of time throughout their lives. It is therefore too much 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 interest of such claimants so that the amount awarded to them by way of compensation serves the purpose and object of reco- mpensing 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 is note that Claims Tribunals do not realise that it is not sufficient to award compensation to the victim of the acci- dent or his legal representatives as the case may be but it is also its duty to ensure that the amount awarded is not frittered away. It must be remembered that lump-sum compensation is paid to the claimants are either the victims of the accident or their legal representatives by applying an appropriate multiplier with a view 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 is 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 squndered away which in all probability may happen the socio-economic objective intended to be achieved by the award of compensation will be wholly defeated. We are therefore at 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 impressed by Mr. Desais 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 re- maining 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 Tribunals boar in mind the it interest of the claimants and direct that substantial amount out of the compensation awarded to the claimants is deposited in a Scheduled Bank in a long term liked deposit the Tribunals will be rendering service to claimants many of whom may not have handled such substantial lump-sum in their lifetime any by 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 a happier situation because they will receive a steady income on their investment with the corpus remaining intact.