CHAMPABEN PUNAMBHAI SINDHVA Vs. MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Bhalodi submitted that a prayer was made before the Tribunal for premature withdrawal of the FDR amount which was placed as per the order of the Court on the award being passed in MACP no.135/2019. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the claimants have prayed for money for construction of the house since the house had fallen down and requires construction and the construction work is in progress as the building contractor has given an estimate of Rs.10,40,000.00, but the learned Tribunal was not impressed by the documents placed on record i.e. photographs of the house and estimate letter issued by Shri Sahajanand Building Contractor. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the learned Tribunal has observed that the documents in the form of revenue record has not been produced by the claimants to prove the ownership and occupancy of the property and the terms and conditions between the claimants and the contractor had not been laid down and the learned Tribunal considered that there was no cogent evidence regarding the ownership, occupancy and the agreement regarding the terms and conditions with the contractor for the construction upon the claimants' property and hence, rejected to release the fixed deposit amount.

(2.) Mr. Bhalodi relied upon the decision in the case of A.V. Padma and Ors. Vs. R. Venugopal and 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 and 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:-