RAJUBHAI GALBABHAI THURI Vs. PRAKASHBHAI DHULABHAI PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is taken up for final disposal. A part of the order dated 22.5.2002, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, is challenged by way of present petition under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that though minor injured has been awarded the amount of compensation while disposing the application preferred under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') and passing interim award the learned Presiding Judge has directed to deposit/invest the entire sum with a nationalised bank, situated within the native district of the petitioner in the joint name of his father as guardian. The court has awarded the interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 under the clause of 'no fault liability'. It is true that this court and the Supreme Court in number of cases have held that the interest of a minor should be protected and the amount of compensation awarded to the minor should be secured till the minor attains majority. This principle normally is to be applied in a given condition and the embargo of not permitting even to raise a loan on the amount deposited/invested is necessary to be imposed, if the court apprehends mishandling of the amount awarded to the minor.

(3.) In the present case, the minor after he sustained accidental injury, was firstly taken to the Civil Hospital, Himatnagar and as the injury was grave in nature, he was thereafter shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. It is the contention in the application preferred under section 140 of the Act that he was admitted in the hospital during night hours and thereafter, he was operated upon considering the number and nature of injuries sustained by him. The learned Claims Tribunal could have ordered that 50 per cent of the total amount with interest deposited/invested against the interim award, should be paid to the father and guardian of the minor, who must have incurred expenses for all his treatment and for keeping himself available at Ahmedabad while attending the minor during his hospital stay. One of the purposes of granting interim compensation under the clause of 'no fault liability' is to rush to the rescue of victim of a vehicular accident. If the entire sum awarded under section 140 of the Act is to be kept in bank, the same would not serve the purpose. It is not the intention of the legislature that the entire sum in the case of a minor or an insane person, should be kept in a bank and any expenses incurred by the guardian or best friend should be borne by such persons only. The approach of learned Tribunal in such or similar cases should be pragmatic and not very conservative or mechanical. While disbursing the amount, the learned Tribunal can consider the nature of injuries sustained by the minor or the person who is not able to take care of himself because of physical or mental infirmity and the type of treatment given to such claimant. So, the petition requires to be allowed. The minor was aged only seven years when he sustained injuries, so this court has reasons to believe that the father of the minor must have spent substantial amount for treatment, hence, the amount awarded by way of interim compensation can be used for treatment purpose. In such a situation, if any father has borrowed money on account of exigency, he would be able to discharge his obligation in a reasonable period of time. All these aspects normally should be considered by the Tribunal. 4 (i) In view of the above, the present petition is hereby allowed and the relevant part of the order dated 22.5.2002, passed by the learned Tribunal below Exh. 5 in M.A.C.T. Claim Petition No. 925 of 2001, under challenge by way of this petition, is hereby quashed and set aside. 4 (ii) It is hereby ordered that 50 per cent amount of the entire sum of the interim compensation awarded to the minor and deposited by the other side be paid to the minor through his natural guardian and father Galbabhai Nijibhai Thuri; and remaining part, i.e., 50 per cent be invested in a nationalised bank selected by the guardian. 4 (iii) The minor was aged only seven years when he sustained injuries, so, this court has reasons to believe that the father of minor must have spent substantial amount for treatment, hence, the amount awarded by way of interim compensation can be used for treatment purpose. In such a situation, if any father has borrowed money on account of exigency, he would be able to discharge his obligation in a reasonable period of time. All these aspects normally should be considered by learned Tribunal. The court is not in agreement that in all exigencies, the entire sum awarded to the minor requires to be deposited in the bank and nothing should be paid to the guardian or the next friend. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direction accordingly. Petition allowed.