MOHRAM ALI Vs. RAKESH KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Tribunal appears to be palpably wrong. The petitioners arc major and are parents of the unfortunate young boy Phool Mohd. who died in a road accident Which took place on 1st February, 1992 with a tempo. While allowing their application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act) the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 which is a statutory requirement. However, the Tribunal imposed a condition on petitioner No. 1 to deposit his entire share of Rs. 12,500.00 in the Bank in the form of fixed deposit for five years. So far as petitioner No. 2i.e. the mother is concerned, she was directed to deposit in the form of FDR for five years a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 out of the interim compensation of Rs. '12,500.00 awarded in her favour. She was, however, allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 .

(2.) Petitioners grievance is that the direction to deposit the money in the Bank in the form of Fixed Deposit for five years was not called for. Their son died in February, 1992. He was ten years old at the time of his death. The interim compensation application has been decided in March, 1988 i.e. almost after six years. The interim compensation which was to be given to them on the principle of 'no fault liability' has in fact been deprived because the Tribunal has placed a condition that the amount be kept in the form of fixed deposit for five years which is against their choice. Contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal's domain without the consent of petitioners thereby ordering them to put partof their compensation in the form of fixed deposit in the Bank is illegal. Noduty is cast upon the Tribunal to direct the legal heirs of the victims to deposit their interim compensation in the form of fixed deposit.

(3.) Many a time it has been observed that the Tribunals mechanically impose conditions on the victims or their relations to deposit their interim compensation in the form of fixed deposit even though they are major. This practice adopted by the Tribunals as felt by this Court create more problems for the claimants as they have to run to this Court for relief. It was in this background that directions were given to the Tribunals not to impose any conditions on the interim compensation awarded in favour of theclaimants. But it appears that some of theTribunals despite the direction of this Court have been disregarding the directions and have been following their own practice. It is in this backdrop that the comments of Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, Tribunal were called. He has tried to justify his stand by saying that there are judgments of Gujarat High Court aswell as Apex Court laying down the guidelines to impose conditions. He has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the cases of General Manager, Kerala State Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., 1994 (2) SCC 176; Lilaben UdesingGohel v. Oriental lnsuranceCo. Ltd. 6- Ors., 1996 ACC 566 (SC); Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India,(1991) 4 SCC 584; and Bishan Devi v. Sirbaksh Singh, 1979 ACJ 496 (SC). Relying on these judgments Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, the Tribunal has tried to justify his order imposing the above condition because he felt that substantial part of compensation has been granted to the petitioners which would ultimately be adjusted against the final award. Therefore, the condition was imposed so that the amount may not be frittered away, mis-utilised or mis-applied.