SUNIL Vs. AMJAD PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard .

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the orders dated 7/3/2014 and 10/3/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In brief, the petitioner had filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of accidental injury before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In Lok Adalat an award of Rs. 1,60,000/ - was passed in favour of petitioner on 30th November 2013. The Insurance Company had deposited the awarded amount before the Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal by order dated 7/3/2014 had directed payment of Rs. 50,000/ - to the petitioner and had further directed to keep remaining Rs. 1,10,000/ - in the fixed deposit for a period of three years. The petitioner had filed an application for modification of the order dated 7/3/14 and seeking permission to withdraw the further amount which has been kept in the fixed deposit but the said application has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal by order dated 10/3/2014. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner in the application before the Tribunal while making a prayer for withdrawal of the amount had disclosed that the petitioner had suffered the fracture in the accident and he was operated rod was inserted and in his treatment he had incurred an expenses of Rs. 70 -80,000/ -. Counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of A.V. Padma & others Vs. R. Venugopal & Others, 2012 1 ACC 457, whereby the Supreme court referring to the earlier judgment in the matter of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas and others, 1994 AIR(SC) 1631 has observed that the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit without appreciating that the guidelines in the matter of Susamma Thomas have been issued only to safeguard the interest of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and other whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. Keeping in view the above judgment of the Supreme court and the facts which have been pointed out by counsel for petitioner, I am of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioner's prayer seeking permission to withdraw the partial amount kept in fixed deposit.

(3.) Considerin G the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of Claims Tribunal dated 10/3/2014 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside with a direction to the Tribunal to permit the petitioner to withdraw further sum of Rs. 50,000/ - from the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/ - which was kept in fixed deposit. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.C. as per rules.