OP (MAC).No.102 OF 2020 AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1766/2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942** **OP (MAC).No.102 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1766/2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SHEFIQ JAMAL, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. JAMAL, RESIDING AT VEERAH MANZIL, ROCK MOUNT, MUNDAKAYAM P. O., KOTTAYAM - 686 513, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER ALEEMA JAMAL, W/O. JAMAL, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT VEERAH MANZIL, ROCK MOUNT, MUNDAKAYAM P. O., KOTTAYAM - 686 513.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 K. J. THOMAS, S/O. JOHN THOMAS KOSERIL, RESIDING AT KOSERIL HOUSE, CIVIL LANE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P. O., ERNAKULAM - 682 025. 2 JOHN THOMAS, S/O. K. J. THOMA, RESIDING AT KOSERIL HOUSE, CIVIL LANE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P. O., ERNAKULAM - 682 025. 3 BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, 4TH FLOOR, YMCA BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.** **THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP (MAC).No.102 OF 2020 2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **~~~~~~~~** The petitioner is the claimant in O.P. ( M.V.) No.1766 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. By Exhibit P1 award dated 25.5.2020, a sum of Rs.62,70,340/- was awarded to the petitioner towards compensation on various heads for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 19.3.2016. The petitioner is an Engineering Graduate and was working as a technical lead in a prominent software concern. The petitioner states that consequent to the accident, he has suffered 68% disability. The occupational disability has been assessed at 100%. The Tribunal ordered that a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs out of the entire amount be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years. Challenging the said award, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before this Court. 2. The petitioner states that substantial portions of the amount received by the petitioner had to be expended for clearing the loans that he had availed towards treatment. Huge sums of money is required for physiotherapy and counselling expenses. In the said circumstances, the petitioner, through his next friend, filed an application seeking withdrawal of the balance portion of the amount. He pointed out in the said application that he is an educated man and an income tax payee and that there cannot ## **OP (MAC).No.102 OF 2020 3** be any apprehension that the petitioner would fritter the amount. He also highlighted the serious financial stringency faced by him. However, the Tribunal by the impugned order rejected his request holding that disbursal of further amounts to the petitioner will not be justified. 3. I have heard Sri T.C. Suresh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Since the entire amount has been deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal , notice to the respondents is dispensed with. ## 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Others** [AIR 1994 SC 1631] had issued extensive guidelines in order to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. The guidelines are extracted below for easy reference. - "(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor 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 ## **OP (MAC).No.102 OF 2020 4** 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 rouge to withdraw money; - (iii) In the ease 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 an 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 **OP (MAC).No.102 OF 2020 5** 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 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." It was ordered that the guidelines are to be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases. 5. As per the guidelines, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. In the case of literate persons, the Tribunal was directed to resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No.(i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. (See **Padma A.V and Others v R. Venugopal and Others** [2012 (3) SCC 378]. 6. As held by the Apex Court in **Padma** (supra) sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the ## **OP (MAC).No.102 OF 2020 6** compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. In the case on hand, the petitioner is a 32 year old engineer, who was working in Cognizant Technologies as Technical lead when he met with the accident. It was a life changing event and he has lost his employment. He has also stated that the amount which was released by the Tribunal has already been spent for his treatment. The Tribunal has rejected his request on the premise that the amount released is more than what has been deposited. The Tribunal however took note of the fact that the petitioner is so disabled that he is not even able to sign his own petition. 7. The guidelines issued by the Apex Court cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. In cases where there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit are not to be ordered as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court. The genuine requirements of the claimants are to be considered by the Tribunal with sympathy and concern and appropriate orders are required to be passed. In the case on hand, the petitioner has clearly narrated the hardships that he is facing due to lack of funds. I have no doubt in my mind that the impugned order will result in serious injustice and hardship to the petitioner. I am of the opinion that there was no need for **OP (MAC).No.102 OF 2020 7** keeping the compensation amount in fixed deposit in the facts and circumstances. Resultantly, the impugned order of the Tribunal will stand set aside. The Tribunal is directed to release the compensation amount retained in fixed deposit to the petitioner forthwith. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** **Sru** **OP (MAC).No.102 OF 2020 8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV) NO.1766/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM DATED 25.05.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.03/2020 SL. NO.4942/2020 IN O.P.(MV) NO.1766/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM DATED 11.11.2020.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE**