# Arun Kumar Srivastava &Anr v. Raisul Hasan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 1326
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-12
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 3798 of 2019
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-kumar-srivastava-anr-v-raisul-hasan-ors-44403
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Motor Vehicle Act-Application-Tribunal
has not taken into consideration the
guideline of SC regarding release of
amount of award. Tribunal must not to
insist on investment of the compensation
amount
is
long-term
fixed
deposit
without
appreciating
the
distinction
drawn by the Apex Court.

In the case of minor, illiterate claimants,
widows and literate person in this instant case
both petitioners are lightly qualified. They had
to pay loans-The Tribunal without considering
mere fact, in a mechanical manner, permitted
release of only the amount on directed under
the main award- release of entire amount in
favour of the petitioners- is allowed.
 (Para 6,7,8) (E-2)

## Text

1326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of Shalini Shyam Shetty andanother
Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil6, and also in
the case of Radhey Shyam and another
Vs. Chhabi Nath and others7.

17. Counsel for the petitioner has
not been able to point out any material
error or illegality in the orders passed by
the courts below so as to warrant
interference in exercise of power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

18. Petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3798 of 2019

Arun Kumar Srivastava &Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Raisul Hasan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vikas Singh.

A. Motor Vehicle Act-Application-Tribunal
has not taken into consideration the
guideline of SC regarding release of
amount of award. Tribunal must not to
insist on investment of the compensation
amount
is
long-term
fixed
deposit
without
appreciating
the
distinction
drawn by the Apex Court.

In the case of minor, illiterate claimants,
widows and literate person in this instant case
both petitioners are lightly qualified. They had
to pay loans-The Tribunal without considering
mere fact, in a mechanical manner, permitted
release of only the amount on directed under
the main award- release of entire amount in
favour of the petitioners- is allowed.
 (Para 6,7,8) (E-2)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta J.)

1. The instant petition is directed
against the order dated 2.4.2019 passed by
Additional District Judge in Civil Misc.
Case No. 1/2019 arising out of Motor
Accident Claims Petition No. 158/2015.
By the impugned order, the Court below
(MACT) has accepted the application of
the petitioners for release of the amount
awarded in their favour in MACP No.
158/2015 in part.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of
the instant petition are that a claim petition
was filed by the petitioners along with
Satyanshu
Srivastava
for
award
of
compensation on account of death of Beena
Srivastava in an accident. Beena Srivastava
was wife of petitioner No. 1 and mother of
petitioner No. 2. The claim petition was
allowed by award dated 25.4.2018 and an
amount of Rs. 77,87,032/- along with 7%
interest was awarded in favour of the
petitioners. Out of the said amount,
petitioner No. 1 was held entitled to a sum
of Rs. 25,00,000/- while the remaining
amount was to be paid to petitioner No. 2.
There was a further direction that out of Rs.
25,00,000/- to be paid to petitioner No. 1,
Rs. 23,00,000/- would be invested in a long
term fixed deposit of five years in a
Nationalised Bank, while the remaining
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- only will be paid to
him. Likewise, in case of petitioner No. 2,
the direction was for investing Rs.
50,00,000/- in a long term fixed deposit in a
Nationalised Bank for five years and for
payment of balance amount of Rs.
2,87,032/- plus interest to her. The appeal
filed by the insurance company was
dismissed on 7.9.2018. The amount payable
under the award had since been deposited
with
the
tribunal.
1 All. Arun Kumar Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Raisul Hasan & Ors.
1327

3. The petitioners filed separate
applications for release of the amount
directed to be invested in FDR for reasons
disclosed in their applications. The
applications filed by the petitioners, as
noted above, were allowed in part. In
respect of petitioner No. 1 only Rs.
2,00,000/- was permitted to be withdrawn
while the remaining amount was directed
to be invested in fixed deposit in a
Nationalised Bank for five years, as was
the direction under the award dated
25.4.2018. In respect of petitioner No. 2
also, a direction was given in terms of the
award for investing Rs. 50,00,000/- in
FDR for a period of five years and for
release of only the remaining amount with
interest, which on the date of passing of
the impugned order was a sum of Rs.
14,56,641/-.
Aggrieved
thereby,
the
instant petition has been filed.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners
in their application have stated that both
of them are highly educated. The
petitioner No. 1 had retired from the post
of Head of Department (Psychology)
from Dayanand Vedic College. Petitioner
No. 2 is M.B.A. in International Business
and claimed that she is competent to take
care of her interest. In their applications,
the petitioners have stated that they had
taken loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- from Axis
Bank, Delhi in the year 2017 at the time
of marriage of petitioner No. 2 and the
said loan is to be repaid. The EMI of the
said loan is Rs. 66,000/- per month. It is
further stated that petitioner No. 1 had
taken another loan of Rs. 7,80,886/- from
Punjab National Bank, Orai under which
only a sum of Rs. 15,92,177/- had been
repaid. They had prayed for release of the
compensation amount to enable them to
repay the loans. It is also stated in the
application of petitioner No. 2 that after
repayment of loan, if any amount is left,
she would purchase a house in Delhi.

5. The tribunal without applying its
mind to the case set-up by the petitioners
in their respective applications passed the
impugned order.

6. It is urged by learned counsel for
the petitioners that the impugned order is
manifestly illegal. The tribunal has not
taken into consideration the case set-up by
the
petitioners
for
release
of
compensation amount in their favour. It is
urged that the petitioners are both major
and are highly qualified. They are in
urgent need of money to repay the loan
amount. Consequently, there was no
justification on part of the tribunal not to
allow the applications in toto. In support
of his contention, he has placed reliance
on the judgment of Supreme Court in A.V.
Padma and others Versus R.Venugopal
and others, 2012 (3) SCC 378.

7. It is noteworthy that the Courts while
awarding compensation in motor accident
cases started imposing condition for investment
of certain amount of compensation in FDRs in
order to safeguard the feed from being frittered
away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance,
illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation
following the guidelines laid down by the
Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum
Versus Susamma Thomas and others, AIR
1994 (SC) 1631. In A.V. Padma (supra), the
Supreme Court in context of literate claimants,
after considering the guidelines laid down in
Susamma Thomas, has observed thus : -

"4. In the case of Susamma
Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain
guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed
1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from
being
frittered
away
by
the
beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy
and susceptibility to exploitation". 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.
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 necessary to
invest the amount of compensation in long
term fixed deposit.

5. 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.
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
1 All. Arun Kumar Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Raisul Hasan & Ors.
1329
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 largerinterests of the
claimant and with a view to ensure the
safety of the compensation awarded to
him. 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."

8. It is clear from the above
enunciation of law by the Supreme Court
that in case of literate persons, it is not
mandatory
to
direct
investment
of
compensation amount in long term fixed
deposit. The Tribunal has to deal with
each case on its own facts. It cannot
impose condition for investment of the
compensation amount in Fixed Deposit of
Nationalised Bank in a mechanical
manner in each and every case being
decided by it. In the case under
consideration by the Supreme Court (A V
Padma), the Supreme Court found that the
first claimant was an educated lady who
retired as Superintendent of the Karnataka
Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore
and the second claimant was a M.Sc.
degree holder and the third claimant was
also holding Master Degree in Commerce
and Philosophy. One of the claimant was
71 years of age. She required money for
maintenance of her house and for raising
further constructions to provide dwelling
place for her second daughter. The
daughter was residing in a rented house
and paying exorbitant rent. The Supreme
Court held that the claimants were entitled
to withdraw the entire amount and issued
directions accordingly.

9. In the instant case, as noted
above, both the petitioners are highly
qualified. They have filed documentary
evidence to prove that they had taken two
loans, one of a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- and
another of Rs. 7,80,886/-. A major portion
of loan amount is still to be paid and they
want to liquidate the loan from the
compensation
amount.
From
the
remaining amount, they would purchase a
house in Delhi. The tribunal without
considering these facts, in a mechanical
manner, permitted release of only the
amount as directed under the main award.
In the circumstance of the instant case, I
am unable to uphold the impugned order
as I am satisfied that this is a fit case
where there is no apprehension of the feed
being frittered away by the beneficiary
owing to ignorance or illiteracy or any
such reason. Accordingly, the impugned
order is set-aside. The applications filed
by the petitioners for release of entire
amount in their favour is allowed.

The Tribunal shall encash the Fixed
Deposit Receipts and shall release the
1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maturity amount along with interest, if
any, in favour of the petitioners, within a
period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.

The
petition
is
allowed
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5176 of 2019

Ram Nath & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Smt Pushpa ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Dushyant Singh, Sri M.C. Singh.

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 8
Rule
1
Delay
in
Filing
of
written
statement
beyond
statutory
period
cannot be condoned as a matter of
course but only by way of exception as
Order 8 Rule 1 is directory-extension of
time will be allowed in exceptional
circumstances.
No illegality in the order passed by the Court
below declining to take written statement on
record-Petitioners have succeeded in getting
the proceedings delayed for almost Fifteen
years- Hence defeating the very object with
which time limit is provided under Order 8 rule
1- such conduct on part of a litigant is highly
deplorable- Petition dismissed with a cost of
Rs. 10,000/- ( Para 2, 4, 7, 8 )

Case Law dismissed: -
Kailash Versus Nanhku and others, AIR 2005
CS 441 (E-2)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta J.)

1. The instant petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 28.2.2009
passed by Additional District Judge,
Court No. 1, Agra dismissing Civil
Revision No. 4 of 2008 and orders dated
20/21.11.2017 and 3.5.2019 passed by the
trial court.

2. The fact of the case are alarming.
The plaintiff-respondent instituted Suit
No. 703 of 2003 against the petitioners for
permanent prohibitory injunction. The
defendants
were
duly
served
with
summons on 25.04.2004. They did not
file written statement within 30 days as
contemplated under Order 8 Rule 1
C.P.C. They also did not file written
statement within further period of 90
days. They filed the written statement on
10.2.2005 i.e. much after the expiry of
statutory period prescribed under Order 8
Rule 1 C.P.C. The plaintiff objected to the
filing of the written statement beyond
statutory period and whereupon, the
defendant-petitioners filed an application
62-Ga dated 23.10.2007 for condoning
delay in filing the written statement. In
the application, the petitioners stated that
they had filed WS without unnecessary
delay. They also stated that negligible
delay, if any, in filing the written
statement be condoned. The trial court by
order dated 20/21.11.2017 relying on
judgment of Supreme Court in Kailash v.
Nanhku and Others, AIR 2005 SC 2441
and other judgments following the said
judgment, rejected the application 62-Ga
filed by the petitioners for condoning the
delay in filing written statement and
directed for proceedings being held as per
Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. Aggrieved
thereby,
the
petitioners
filed
Civil
Revision No. 4 of 2008. The same was