SAVITA Vs. SAMSUDEEN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar has in proceedings initiated by a claim petition presented under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 awarded compensation to the parents, widow and the minor daughter of decedent Ram Niwas on account of his death in a motor accident caused by culpable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. A total sum of Rs. 11.45 lacs has been awarded to the claimants in the ratio of 5:10:50:35 with interest @ 8% per annum to the father, mother, widow and the child of Ram Niwas respectively and in that order. The amounts stand deposited in their names in the form of FDRs in a nationalized bank for a year and in the case of the minor, till attaining the age of majority, whichever is later. The tribunal ordered that the parents would be entitled to apply for early payment in case of emergency or necessity vide directions issued in the award made on 1st March, 2013. A joint application was filed on 27th March, 2014 by the father, mother and widow of the decedent, the sole bread-winner. An early withdrawal of the money for personal use was made to discharge heavy debts incurred by the family who were under an obligation to repay them. Besides, the three applicants had no independent source of income to tide over their problems and daily needs. They prayed that they required 50% of the awarded amount each in cash against FDRs either as loan or by release in cash.

(2.) The Tribunal vide order dated 27th March, 2014 has allowed the prayer of the father and the mother of the decedent on account of "old age". In the application, the ages of the father and mother are recorded as 55 and 48 years respectively. However, the Tribunal has denied release of amount in favour of the widow in cash at this stage for the only reason that the prayer of the father and mother has been allowed and that seems enough relief. This Court finds the reason of denial to the widow as irrelevant. If the money was released to the parents that alone is not sufficient ground to deny the claim of the widow. It is also strange that in the application, the prayer was limited to release of 50% of the awarded amount to the three and against that request the tribunal has permitted release of full amount for which extent no reason has been assigned. If the tribunal was so large-hearted towards the parents, it could have easily shown a little more sympathy and compassion for the widow in grief, whose money it was without doubt, by ordering release of the amount claimed by her instead of making her run around spending money to come to this Court without any valid reason except that there was an order against her which could only be undone by a superior Court. It is a matter of some surprise that a Judicial Officer manning a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should apply such susceptible reasoning in making an order which appears both incorrect on facts as to recording of 'old age', which were not in and by granting prayers beyond their requests in the application for early release of money. It is however not for this Court to now reduce the amount to the one claimed as it probably stands disbursed to the father and mother of the decedent. Even if it were not disbursed for any reason, it should not be now ordered and the money regurgitated into bank accounts. If the reasoning applied by the Tribunal in releasing the amount in the percentages awarded to each of the two claimants is accepted in favour of the parents, then it follows sequitur that the petitioning widow should not be denied her prayer for release of her money, their interest being sui juris.

(3.) Resultantly, this court has hardly any option but to set aside the order dated 27th March, 2014 brought to this Court by the hands of the widow and to direct the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar to release the amount to the widow, the petitioner before this Court to be paid to her through account transfer, in case the petitioner has a bank account and if not, then by cash since the money belongs to the widow as per her share apportioned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal should not act as an investment banker unless it had satisfied itself in the beginning as to the judicial parameters set in protection of the weak from possible exploitation resulting from illiteracy or semi-illiteracy, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of society to which the claimants belong with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded. But such an exercise has not been undertaken by the Tribunal and nor did it make any endeavour to call upon the claimants to file an additional affidavit in support of the application to examine the case for early release of money prematurely in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 2 SCC 176 which are reproduced below as a reminder and for further guidance as the Supreme Court intended that the guidelines should be born in mind by the tribunals in the cases of award of monetary compensation in accident cases : -