NAYNABEN Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr. M. I. Mansuri for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being an injured minor, had filed claim petition No. 886 of 1994 and the learned Tribunal had granted Rs.38,650.00 for the accident which had occurred on 25/12/1993. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner had preferred the First Appeal No. 3967 of 2019 and the amount came to be enhanced by the judgment and order dtd. 15/12/2022.

(2.) The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that after a long period, the petitioner, who was a minor at the time of accident, would get the fruits of litigation and since, she wanted to use the money for her own development and business purpose, she had moved an application before the learned Tribunal at Godhra for disbursement of total amount, however, the total amount which was Rs.7,46,009.00 which was deposited along with interest from the date of application, with the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal permitted only 30% amount, while 70% was ordered to be deposited in the FDR in Nationalized Bank/ Baroda-Gujarat Gramin Bank of the petitioner's choice for a period of five years. It is submitted that the petitioner is a literate lady and she could have rather invested the amount as per her knowledge and understanding to earn more interest. Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in A. V. Padma & Ors. v. R. Venugopal & Ors ., (2012) 3 SCC 378, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the lady, after a long period, should be granted money for her own, for business benefits. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner relying upon a copy of Partnership Deed that the petitioner is partner to the firm and further to show her own independent business, has also produced copy of another Partnership Deed, executed on 10/12/2022. It is further contended that the Tribunal is required to give a thoughtful consideration to the genuine requirements of the claimant and should avoid mechanical approach ignoring the object and spirit of the Act.

(3.) In the case of A. V. Padma (supra), it is observed considering the fact that after a long battle of litigation, the petitioner could finally get the compensation amount and considering the fact that the petitioner is actively involved in the partnership business, she can prudently exercise her discretion and manage her funds and can individually decide about systematic planning for investing the money.