ASHALATA DEB NATH Vs. KRIT KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed against the order dated 6.11.97 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Misc. (MAC) 59/97 arising out of T.S. (MAC) 253/97 and in case No. Misc. (MAC) 60/97 arising out of T.S. (MAC) 252/ 97. By the said orders, the Tribunal while allowing compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards no fault liability directed that 90% of the awarded compensation to be deposited by the United India Insurance Company Limited would be invested in long term fixed deposit schemes at least for five years of a Nationalised Bank in the name of Smti. Ashalata Debnath, petitioner No. 1 in Civil Rule No. 27/98 and in the name of Smti. Namita Roy, petitioner No.2 in Civil Rule No. 28/98, who are the mothers of the victims of the accident, and further directed the Bank not to allow any advance or loan against the said amounts and to pay only the interest that may accrue in the said fixed deposit amounts to the petitioner No. 1 in Civil Rule No. 27/98, Smti. Ashalata Debnath and the petitioner No. 2 in Civil Rule No. 28/98, Smti. Namita Roy.

(2.) Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, assisted by Mr. P.K. Paul, contensed that the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal for depositing 90% of the amount of no-fault liability of Rs.50,000/ - were perhaps given following the direction of the Supreme Court in the cases of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. Trivandrum -Vs- Mrs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1631, and Lilaben U. Gohel -Vs- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 1605. He contended that the Tribunal had not properly appreciated the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two decisions and that the direction for deposit of the compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards no- fault liability in the fixed deposits was not correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Mr. Chakraborty further argued that the petitioners would have to incur a lot o expenses and the Tribunal should have kept in mind this important fact and should not have directed that 90% of the aforesaid compensation should be deposited in the fixed deposits. He further pointed out that not all the claimants before the Tribunal are minors or widows and that only two out of the four claimants in each case are minors and this fact also has been ignored by the Tribunal while directing deposit of the amounts in fixed deposits.

(3.) On perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manger, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum -Vs- Mrs. Susamma Thomas & Ors. (supra), I find that the Supreme Court quoted the guidelines laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan-Vs- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1982 (1) 23 Guj. LR 756 and observed that the guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases. One of the guidelines laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the said case of Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan -Vs- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) is that the Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. But in the said guideline it has further been stated that the expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however be allowed to be withdrawn. Similarly, in another guideline in the said judgment of the Gujarat High Court it has been stated that in all cases Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of an emergency and to meet with such a contingency, if the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims Tribunal may invest it in more than one Fixed Deposit so that if need be one such F.D.R. can be liquidated.