# Aidal Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 2002
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-26
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 31515 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aidal-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51605
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Motor
Vehicle
Act,1988Section 166-In the present case, the
claimants lost their son in the year 2015the application was filed for release of the
money so that the petitioner's daughter
could get married-Proof of this fact was
also filed before the tribunal but the
tribunal has failed to understand the
urgency in the matter-As per law laid
down by the Apex Court it is clear that the
guidelines
were
issued
to
keep
the
amount in a Fixed Deposit for aa period of
time only in the case of minors, illiterate
and widow claimants-The tribunal has
taken a rigid stand and has mechanically
passed the order without understanding
and without appreciating the distinction
drawn
by
the
supreme
court-The
claimants are now aged about 57 years
having responsibility of two daughters
and one son-Hence there is no reason to
not
allow
the
application
of
the
petitioners.(Para 1 to 24)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

2002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of communication of the
instant order.

17. In the result, the writ petitions
are allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 2002
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2024 &
13.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ-C No. 31515 of 2023

Aidal Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Om Prakash Rai, Sri Ashish Rai

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Motor
Vehicle
Act,1988Section 166-In the present case, the
claimants lost their son in the year 2015the application was filed for release of the
money so that the petitioner's daughter
could get married-Proof of this fact was
also filed before the tribunal but the
tribunal has failed to understand the
urgency in the matter-As per law laid
down by the Apex Court it is clear that the
guidelines
were
issued
to
keep
the
amount in a Fixed Deposit for aa period of
time only in the case of minors, illiterate
and widow claimants-The tribunal has
taken a rigid stand and has mechanically
passed the order without understanding
and without appreciating the distinction
drawn
by
the
supreme
court-The
claimants are now aged about 57 years
having responsibility of two daughters
and one son-Hence there is no reason to
not
allow
the
application
of
the
petitioners.(Para 1 to 24)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. G.M. KRSRTC Vs Sushamma Thomas & ors.
(1994)1 TAC 323

2. Zainba Vs M.A.C.T H (1999) ACC 567

3. Agnihotri Vs M.A.C.T/ ADJ,Agra & ors. (2005)
LawSuit (All) 2165

4. Padma & ors. Vs R. Venugopal & ors. (2012)
3 SCC 378

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Rai,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the orders dated 05.06.2023
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bulandshahar in Misc. Case No. 545 of
2023 & 555 of 2023 directing for part
release of the compensation awarded in
claim petition i.e. Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 468 of 2015 and directing the
remaining amount to be invested in a Fixed
Deposit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
one Ganpat Singh son of Aidal Singh died
in a road accident on 19.08.2015 at about
08:00P.M. involving fortuner car No. UP81
CB 7686. Claim petition No. 468 of 2015
was filed by the claimants i.e. parents of
the deceased Ganpat Singh along with two
unmarried sisters and one brother of the
deceased under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act. The aforesaid claim petition
3 All. Aidal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2003
was allowed by the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal/ Additional District Judge,
Court No. 12, Bulandshahar vide its award
dated 24.10.2017. Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,39,000/-
to be paid by the Insurance Company along
with an interest @ 7% per annum from the
date of filing of the application. The
claimant nos. 3, 4 & 5 who were sisters and
brother of the deceased Ganpat Singh were
held not entitled for compensation by the
tribunal as they were not dependent upon
the deceased Ganpat Singh. Parents of the
deceased Ganpat Singh i.e. claimant nos. 1
& 2 were given compensation in equal
shares. The tribunal vide award dated
24.10.2017 directed for a payment of Rs.
2,00,000/- to each of the claimants i.e.
claimant nos. 1 & 2 and directed that the
remaining amount shall be deposited in a
nationalized
bank
having
maximum
interest.

4. The claimants filed First Appeal
From Order No. 264 of 2018 (Premwati
and 4 others v. Ikbal and 2 others) before
the High Court challenging the judgment
and award dated 24.10.2017 and has also
claimed the enhancement of compensation.
The aforesaid F.A.F.O. was allowed in part
by
this
Court
by
judgment
dated
22.02.2022. The High Court awarded the
compensation of Rs. 23,65,000/- to the
claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum.

5. The Insurance Company in
compliance of the judgment passed by this
Court in F.A.F.O. No. 264 of 2018,
deposited the entire amount before the
Claims Tribunal.

6. The petitioner no. 1, Aidal Singh
moved an application on 03.05.2023 before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for
payment of F.D.R. No. 961094 of Rs.
2,97,300/- dated 24.02.2023 along with
interest to the petitioner no. 1 on the ground
that the marriage of his daughter is to be
held
on
11.06.2023.
The
aforesaid
application was registered as Misc. Case
No. 555 of 2023. A similar application was
also moved by the petitioner no. 2
regarding F.D.R. No. 961093 of Rs.
2,97,300/- dated 24.02.2023 on the ground
of settlement of marriage of her daughter
Km. Vimlesh. The aforesaid application
was registered as Misc. Case No. 554 of
2023. In support of their claim, the
petitioners also annexed the marriage card.

7. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bulandshahar by its two separate
orders dated 05.06.2023 in Misc. Case No.
554 of 2023 & 555 of 2023 directed for
release of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of each
of the claimant/petitioner and has further
directed that the remaining amount shall be
reinvested in a new Fixed Deposit. Being
aggrieved by the order impugned dated
05.06.2023 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar, the present
writ petition has been filed.

8. Contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the tribunal
has erred in law in not releasing the amount
of
F.D.R.
in
favour
of
the
claimants/petitioners and the direction for
further deposit of the remaining amount in
Fixed Deposit is wholly arbitrary. It has
also been contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the son of the
petitioner Ganpat Singh died in the year
2015 and at that time the petitioner nos. 1
& 2 were 49 years old and now they are
aged about 57 years having two unmarried
daughters and one son. The application for
withdrawal was moved for meeting out the
2004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expenses likely to be incurred in the
marriage of their daughter Km. Vimlesh.

9. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1
contended that the orders passed by the
Tribunal are perfectly just and are also in
consonance with the law as laid down by
the Apex Court in case of General
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation v. Sushamma Thomas and
others reported in 1994 (1) TAC 323 as
well as Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1998.

10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of this
Court in case of Runna v. Vth Additional
District
Judge/Motor
Accident
Claim
Tribunal, Gorakhpur reported in II (1999)
ACC 268, judgment of Kerala High Court
in Case of Zainba v. M.A.C.T. reported in
II (1999) ACC 567 and in case of Sudha
Agnihotri
v.
M.A.C.T./Additional
District Judge, Court No. 4, Agra and
others reported in 2005 LawSuit (All)
2165.

11. Before considering the rival
submissions and the law relied upon by the
respective parties, it would be useful to
refer the statutory provisions as contained
in U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998. The
relevant rule is Rule 220-B which is quoted
as under:

"220-B. Securing the interest of
Claimants.-(1)
Where
any
lump-sum
amount of compensation, deposited with
the Claims Tribunal is payable to a woman
or a person under legal disability/ such
sum may be invested, applied or otherwise
dealt with for the benefit of the woman or
such person during his disability in such
manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct
to be paid to any dependent of the injured
or heirs of the deceased or to any other
person whom the Claims Tribunal thinks
best fitted to provide for the welfare of the
injured or the heir of the deceased.
(2) Where an application made to
the
Claims
Tribunal
in
this
behalf
otherwise, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied
that on account of neglect of the children
on the part of the parents, or on account of
the variation of the circumstances of any
dependent, or for any other sufficient
cause, an order of the Claims Tribunal as
to the distribution of any sum paid as
compensation or as to the manner in which
any sum payable to any such dependent is
to be invested applied or otherwise dealt
with, ought to be varied, the Claims
Tribunal may make such further orders for
the variation of the former order as it
thinks just in the circumstances of the case.
(3) The Claims Tribunal shall, in
the case of minor, order that amount of
compensation awarded to such minor be
invested in fixed deposits till such minor
attains majority. The expenses incurred by
the guardian or the next friend may be
allowed to be withdrawn by such guardian
or the next friend from such deposits before
it is deposited : Provided that the interest
payable on such deposits may be allowed to
be utilized for education, maintenance and
development of the minor with the
permission of the Claims Tribunal.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall, in
the case of illiterate claimants, order that
the amount of compensation awarded be
invested in fixed deposits for a minimum
period of three years, but if any amount is
required for effecting purchase of any
movable
or
immovable
property
for
improving the income of the claimant, the
Claims Tribunal may consider such a
request after being satisfied that the
amount would be actually spent for the
3 All. Aidal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2005
purpose and the demand is not a ruse to
withdraw money.
(5) The Claims Tribunal shall, in
the case of semi-literate person resort to
the procedure for the deposit or award
amounts set out in sub-rule (4) unless if is
satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in
writing that the whole or part of the
amount is required for the expansion of any
existing business or for the purchase of
some property as specified and mentioned,
in sub-rule (4) in which case the Claims
Tribunal shall ensure that the amount is
invested for the purpose for which it is
prayed for and paid.
(6) The Claims Tribunal may in the
case of literate persons also resort to the
procedure for deposit of awarded amount
specified in sub-rules (4) and (5) if having
regard to the age, fiscal background and
state of society to which the claimant
belongs and such other consideration/ the
Claims Tribunal in the larger interest of the
claimant and with a view to ensure the
safety of the compensation awarded, thinks
it necessary to order.
(7) The Claims Tribunal, may in
personal injury cases, if further treatment
is necessary, on being satisfied which shall
be
recorded
in
writing,
permit
the
withdrawal of such amount as is necessary
for the expenses of such treatment.
(8) The Claims Tribunal may, in the
matter of investment of money, have regard
to maximum return by ways of periodical
income to the claimant, deposit with public
sector undertaking of the State or Central
Government which offers higher rate of
interest.
(9) The Claims Tribunal shall, in
investing money, direct that the interest on
the deposits be paid directly to the
claimants or the guardian of the minor
claimants by the institution holding the
deposits under intimation to the Claims
Tribunal]."

12. In General Manager, Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation v.
Sushamma
Thomas
(Supra)
,
the
Supreme Court issued certain guidelines in
order to safeguard the feed from being
frittered away by the beneficiaries due to
ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to
exploitation. The said guidelines are
extracted below:

"(i).The claims Tribunal should, in
the case of minors, invariably order
amount of compensation awarded to the
minor invested in long term fixed deposited
at least till the date of the minor attaining
majority. The expenses incurred by the
guardian or next friend may however, be
allowed to be withdrawn.
(ii). In the case of illiterate
claimants also the Claims Tribunal should
follow the procedure set out in (i) above,
but if lump sum payment is required for
effecting purchases of any movable or
immovable property such as agricultural
implements, rickshaw, etc. to earn a living
the Tribunal may consider such a request
after making sure that the amount is
actually spent for the purpose and the
demand is not a ruse to withdraw money.
(iii). In the case of semi-literate
persons the Tribunal should ordinarily
resort to the procedure set out in (i) above
unless it is satisfied for reasons to be stated
in writing, that the whole or part of the
amount is required for expending any
existing business or for purchasing some
property as mentioned in (ii) above for
earning his livelihood in which case the
Tribunal will ensure that the amount is
invested for the purpose for which it is
demanded and paid.
2006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(iv). In the case of literate persons
also the Tribunal may resort to the
procedure indicated in (i) above subject to
the realization set out in (ii) and (iii) above,
if having regard to the age, fiscal
background and strata of society to which
the claimant belongs and such other
considerations, the Tribunal in the larger
interest of the claimant and with a view to
ensuring the safety of the compensation
awarded to him thinks it necessary to so
order.

(v). In the case of widows the
claims Tribunal should invariably follow
the procedure set out in (i) above.

(vi). In personal injury cases, if
further treatment is necessary the Claims
Tribunal on being satisfied about the same,
which shall be recorded in writing, permit
withdrawal of such amount as is necessary
for incurring the expenses for such
treatment.

(vii). In all cases in which
investment in long term fixed deposits is
made it should be an condition that the
bank will not permit any loan or advance
on the fixed deposit and interest on the
amount invested is paid monthly directly to
the claimant or his guardian, as the case
may be.

(viii). In all cases Tribunal should
grant to the claimants liberty to apply for
withdrawal in case of an emergency. 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."

13. These guidelines have now
been incorporated by the legislature and the
Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998 have been inserted in the rules.

14. In case of Runna v. Vth
Additional District Judge (Supra), this
Court held that there is no dispute that the
petitioner is a major and hence it is for her
to decide what to do with money which has
been awarded, and set-aside the order dated
16.05.1996 and directed that a sum of Rs.
75,000/- alongwith interest which may
have accrued thereupon be paid to the
petitioner forthwith. (para-2)

15. In case of Zainba v. M.A.C.T.
(Supra), the money was directed to be
deposited in Fixed Deposit by the Tribunal.
After the Fixed Deposit matured, the
petitioner moved an application for release
of the said amount in order to meet the
expenses of the marriage of her grand
daughter. According to the petitioner her
daughter is a divorcee and she require the
money for their livelihood. The application
was rejected by the Tribunal stating that the
Tribunal was not satisfied that the need is
genuine. The Kerala High Court held that
since five years have already over and the
petitioner is a widow lady and she is
claiming only her share, there is no reason
to reject her application for release of her
share.

16. In case of Sudha Agnihotri v.
M.A.C.T. (supra), this Court has held in
paragraph no. 4 as under:

"4. After respective arguments have
been advanced undisputed position is that
husband of the petitioner met with an
accient and died. Claim petition of the
petitioner and two others was allowed and
as far as petitioner is concerned one lac of
rupees was awarded to her out of which a
sum of Rs. 20,000 has been paid and
3 All. Aidal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2007
remaining eighty thousand has been
invested in the fixed deposit. Award in
question does not disclose as to in what
way and manner said amount in question
was to be paid: it merely mentioned that
from the date of order aforesaid amount in
question be paid with 8% simple interest.
Petitioner is major and educated lady and
has done beautician course from Mahila
Training Centre, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur
and she intends to settle herself, for which
she has taken decision for opening a beauty
parlour for which she needs funds. Apart
from rupees eighty thousand she has got
she has no other source of income.
Petitioner intends to establish herself
independently for which she has taken
decision for opening beauty parlour.
Petitioner is major and fully competent and
capable to decide her future and as such
withdrawal of the amount must be left at
her will and as such at this staeg when
petitioner took decision to start business
for herself, it would be totally unfair to
retain the said amount in the Nationalized
Bank, in case petitioner would have been
illiterate lady and could not understand her
interest then position would have been
different but here petitioner is well
educated lady and understands her future."

17. The judgment in case of
General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation v. Sushamma
Thomas (Supra) was considered and
explained by the Apex Court in case of
A.V. Padma and others v. R. Venugopal
and others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 378,
wherein the Apex Court has held in para
nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 as under:

"6. Even as per the guidelines
issued by this Court Court, long term fixed
deposit of amount of compensation is
mandatory only in the case of minors,
illiterate claimants and widows. In the case
of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is
allowed to consider the request for
lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of
any movable property such as agricultural
implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living.
However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall
make sure that the amount is actually spent
for the purpose and the demand is not a
ruse to withdraw money. In the case of
semi-illiterate
claimants,
the
Tribunal
should ordinarily invest the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit.
But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons
to be stated in writing that the whole or
part of the amount is required for
expanding an existing business or for
purchasing some property for earning a
livelihood, the Tribunal can release the
whole
or
part
of
the
amount
of
compensation to the claimant provided the
Tribunal will ensure that the amount is
invested for the purpose for which it is
demanded and paid. In the case of literate
persons, it is not mandatory to invest the
amount of compensation in long term fixed
deposit.

7. The expression used in guideline
No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the
case of literate persons also the Tribunal
may resort to the procedure indicated in
guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline
Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression
used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover,
in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal
may resort to the procedure indicated in
guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to
the age, fiscal background and strata of the
society to which the claimant belongs and
such other considerations, the Tribunal
thinks that in the larger interest of the
claimant and with a view to ensure the
safety of the compensation awarded, it is
2008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
necessary
to
invest
the
amount
of
compensation in long term fixed deposit.
8. Thus, sufficient discretion has
been given to the Tribunal not to insist on
investment of the compensation amount in
long term fixed deposit and to release even
the whole amount in the case of literate
persons. However, 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. They
are taking such a rigid and mechanical
approach
without
understanding
and
appreciating the distinction drawn by this
Court in the case of minors, illiterate
claimants and widows and in the case of
semi-literate and literate persons. It needs
to be clarified that the above guidelines
were issued by this Court only to safeguard
the interests of the claimants, particularly
the minors, illiterates and others whose
amounts are sought to be withdrawn on
some fictitious grounds. The guidelines
were not to be understood to mean that the
Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while
considering an application seeking release
of the money.
9.
The
guidelines
cast
a
responsibility on the Tribunals to pass
appropriate orders after examining each
case on its own merits. However, it is seen
that even in cases when there is no
possibility or chance of the feed being
frittered away by the beneficiary owing to
ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to
exploitation, investment of the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit is
directed by the Tribunals as a matter of
course and in a routine manner, ignoring
the object and the spirit of the guidelines
issued by this Court and the genuine
requirements of the claimants. Even in the
case of literate persons, the Tribunals are
automatically ordering investment of the
amount of compensation in long term fixed
deposit without recording that having
regard to the age or fiscal background or
the strata of the society to which the
claimant
belongs
or
such
other
considerations, the Tribunal thinks it
necessary to direct such investment in the
larger interests of the claimant and with a
view
to
ensure
the
safety
of
the
compensation awarded to him.
10. The Tribunals very often
dispose of the claimant's application for
withdrawal of the amount of compensation
in a mechanical manner and without
proper application of mind. This has
resulted in serious injustice and hardship to
the claimants. The Tribunals appear to
think that in view of the guidelines issued
by this Court, in every case the amount of
compensation should be invested in long
term
fixed
deposit
and
under
no
circumstances the Tribunal can release the
entire amount of compensation to the
claimant even if it is required by him.
Hence a change of attitude and approach
on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in
the interest of justice."

18. From the law as laid down by
the Apex Court it is clear that the
guidelines were issued to keep the amount
in a Fixed Deposit for a period of time only
in the case of minors, illiterate claimants
and widow.

19. In the instant case, the Court
finds that the tribunal has taken a very rigid
stand and has mechanically passed the
order without understanding and without
appreciating the distinction drawn by the
Supreme Court. In the present case, the
claimants/petitioners lost their son in the
year
2015
and
at
that
time
the
petitioners/claimants were aged about 49
years and when they moved the application
3 All. Dr. Rajeev Sinha Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
2009
for release of the amount in June,
2023, they were aged about 57 years and
have responsibility of three children of
marriageable age. The award was passed in
the year 2017 and the money was invested
in Fixed Deposit.

20. The guidelines has been issued
in case of General Manager, Kerala State
Road
Transport
Corporation
v.
Sushamma Thomas (Supra) which have
now been incorporated in the Rules was
only to safeguard the interest of the
claimants particularly the minors and the
illiterate. These guidelines were not meant
to understood to mean that the tribunal was
suppose to take a rigid stand while
considering
the
application
of
the
petitioners for the release of money.

21. In the present case, the
application was filed for release of the
money so that the petitioners' daughter
could get married. Proof of this fact was
also filed before the tribunal but the
tribunal has failed to understand the
urgency in the matter and has mechanically
passed the orders. There is nothing to show
that the petitioners are illiterate on the other
hand a genuine reason has been given by
the petitioner for release of the balance
amount.

22. Considering the facts of this
case that the claimants are now aged about
57 years having responsibility of two
daughters and one son and particularly that
the award was passed in the year 2017 of
an accident which has taken place in the
year 2015, there is no reason to not allow
the application of the petitioners in its
entirety.
23. The Court is of the opinion that
the direction for further investment in
Fixed Deposit as contained in the order
impugned
cannot
be
sustained
and
therefore, the
impugned
order
dated
05.06.2023 is hereby quashed to the extent
its directs for depositing the remaining
amount in Fixed Deposit.

24. The writ petition is allowed.

25. The petitioners are entitled for
the release of amount as prayed by them.
The tribunal is directed to release the
amount
and
the
interest
accrued
immediately upon receipt of the certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 2009
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,
A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-C No. 33840 of 2023
connected with
Writ-C No. 42177 of 2023

Dr. Rajeev Sinha ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Kalpana Sinha, Sri Navin Sinha(Sr. Advocate), Sri
Utkarsh Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, Sri Raghav
Dwivedi

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226 -
Maintainability of writ petition - Arbitral
award under National Highways Act, 1956