USHABEN RAJESHKUMAR VYAS Vs. OSMAN MAMAD SAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.Hemal Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners submit that petitioner no.2 has made a prayer for granting him Rs.2,24,500.00 as premature withdrawal of the FDR amount, which was deposited after apportionment of compensation granted in MACP No.297 of 2002. Mr.Shah states that application being CMA MACP No.1083 of 2021 was made by the petitioner before the Tribunal, as he is in need of money for constructing residential house. Mr.Shah states that the State Bank of India, Ahmedabad, has sanctioned loan of Rs.20.00Lacs for residential purpose in his favour and, petitioner no.2 serves in Issumation Technology Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, and is drawing salary of Rs.45,000.00. He states that the bank has released an amount of Rs.8.00 Lacs, Rs.6.00 Lacs and Rs.4.00 Lacs and the petitioner has to pay principal amount of Rs.13,75,268.00 in his loan account, with interest at the rate of 6.80%, while he receives interest at 4.90%. Mr.Shah submits that inspite of having money in FDR, the petitioner is unnecessarily bearing burden of more interest to be paid on the loan amount. Mr.Shah submits that prayer was made before the Tribunal concerned at Bhuj-Kachchh for release of amount, however, learned Tribunal rejected the application on 18/9/2021 being CMA MACP No.1083 of 2021 observing that FD is of 12/11/2020 and within ten months from the said period, application has been moved. Further, it is observed that the applicant has received 30% amount of compensation through account payee cheque and the petitioner is serving and, his economic condition is sound. Mr.Shah submits that though decision in the case of A.V. Padma & Ors. Vs. R. Venugopal & Ors., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 378 was cited before the Tribunal, learned Tribunal failed to accept the submission and rejected the prayer.

(2.) Mr.Shah has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of A.V. Padma & Ors. Vs. R. Venugopal & Ors., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 378 to contend 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. A.V. Padma's case (supra) refers to the guidelines issued in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176. In Susamma Thomas's case (supra), while approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 1982 (1) GLR 756, the Apex Court has offered the following guidelines:-

(3.) In the case of A.V. Padma (supra), while appreciating the guidelines issued in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), it has been observed as under:-