RIYAS Vs. AYISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner met with a motor accident in which he sustained serious fractures and injuries. The claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was allowed by awarding an amount of Rs. 4,35,000/- with interest at 7% from 12.3.2007 till realisation, from the respondents. The Award is produced as Ext. P1. Though the claim, as aforesaid was allowed, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to produce four cheques, of which one for Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh only) was directed to be paid to the petitioner and the other three cheques, being for the balance amounts, to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank for a period of three years, five years and seven years respectively with liberty to withdraw the interest periodically. The petitioner approached the Tribunal for release of the entire amounts by I.A. No. 1141 of 2013. The Tribunal, by Exhibit P3, ordered the closure of one deposit only, i.e., the one deposited for three years, i.e., the or deposited for three years falling due on 8.1.2014. The petitioner, before the Tribunal as also before this Court, contends that his condition is really pathetic and he is not in a position to move around without the aid of a wheel chair or support from third persons for his day to day affairs, as he has sustained 70% permanent disability, and still continues his treatment. He has no other means of livelihood and is not in a position to do any sort of work and he wishes to start a lottery business with the aid of his father. The petitioner hence, claims that the amounts granted as compensation ought to be released to him and no purpose would be served by keeping the money in Fixed Deposits.

(2.) The learned counsel placed before this Court a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court Padma A.V. & Ors. v. R. Venugopal & Ors., 2012 3 SCC 378 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had held that the Tribunals should not mechanically order deposit of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposits as a matter of course without recording the reasons for making such orders. Due regard should be had to the age, fiscal and social background, literacy status etc., of the claimant when making such orders; to ensure that the amounts awarded are not frittered away. Deposit of amounts could be ordered in the case of minors, illiterates and others whose social status requires such a regulatory order and the larger interest of the claimant should be the guiding factor. Thus, the Honourable Supreme Court had deprecated the rigid stand of various Tribunals while considering and disposing of the applications seeking release of money.

(3.) On the facts in the present case, the decision cited by the learned counsel squarely applies. The petitioner was a coolie and the accident completely incapacitated him from doing any sort of work and he is incapacitated and has to depend on a wheel-chair to move around. He has sustained 70% permanent disability, and still continues his treatment. He has no other means of livelihood and he wishes to start a lottery business with the aid of his father. In fact no reasons are stated in the award for requiring the amounts to be locked in a fixed deposit for 5 and 7 years. The order rejecting the premature release of the two more Fixed Deposits is on the ground that withdrawal of the entire amount is not necessary to start the proposed business. There is absolutely no warrant to assume that the award amounts would be wasted away by the petitioner. The Tribunals while making along term deposit should be circumspect; insofar as the interest due in long term deposits, in the present commercial conditions, is not higher than that of short term deposits. Though it is to ensure a longer lock-in period, long term deposits are directed to be made, the Tribunals have also to keep in mind the situation in which the claimant or the dependants of the claimants may seek for premature release of these amounts. The same is permitted by Padma A.V. . In such cases, the premature closure conditions would work out to be more onerous in long term deposits, especially in deposits in which the interest is directed to be paid to the claimants/dependants periodically (in monthly, quarterly or half-yearly rests). The premature closure in such circumstance would entail recovery of the interest already paid from the principal amount, since on premature closure the Banks reduce the interest by 1%. It would be ideal if the Tribunals obtained information as to the interest rates for various periods and even when directing deposit for short terms, the Tribunals definitely would direct lien to be marked on the deposits in favour of the Tribunal, so that a periodic review of the circumstance of the claimants/dependants can be made and if found necessary, the deposits could be extended for a further period. If no claims are made on the expiry of the term, necessarily the Banks renew the fixed deposits. In making deposits for a shorter period, ideally the Tribunals should be advised to prescribe a minimum period, which would enable the claimants/dependants to receive periodic interest. In the present fiscal scenario, a minimum period of one year or slightly above would be advisable, since Banks provide for interest for fixed deposits on the number of days. This would in fact work out to be better for the claimants also. In the instant case, it is to be noticed that the Tribunal directed premature closure of a deposit which falls due on 8.1.2014. In fact, the Tribunal could have directed release of another deposit which had been deposited for a larger period and the claimant could have been directed to encase the deposit prematurely directed to be closed; at the time of maturity, which falls immediately in the next year. In any event, since premature closure has already been made of that deposit, it is directed that the deposit made for seven years also be prematurely closed and the proceeds paid to the claimant. The other deposit for five years shall remain as such, unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal.