KRISHANA DEVI Vs. M A C T BHIWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the order seeking for discharge of the fixed deposit and for payment of the amount directed to be deposited as compensation. The direction for deposit itself was erroneous and the rejection of the application for withdrawal of the amount was more so. The direction for deposit was enunciated by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala SRTC Versus Susamma Thomas, 1994 2 SCC 176 reiterating the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, 1982 1 GLR 756. This was affirmed again in Union Carbide Corporation Versus Union of India, 1991 4 SCC 584 to protect the amount against the wastage by claimants who are illiterate or semi literates. This was in some sense recognition of the possible exploitation of litigants by touts and others who would take the compensation to their own benefit and deny the benefit secured through the awards. This caution is however unnecessary in a case where the claimants are the parents and by the very nature of things, being elder to the deceased, they shall have the benefit of the award to mature immediately. This issue has been considered in the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.S. Ahammed Hussain and another Versus Irfan Ahammed, 2002 6 SCC 52, where the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to keep in deposit the amount payable to the mother for death of her son.

(2.) In the settled position, I dispense with notice to the respondents, for, even otherwise the Insurance Company cannot join issues on whether the claimants should be provided with the benefit of withdrawal of the amount deposited or not.

(3.) The revision petition is allowed.