# Hemant Kumar & Anr v. Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Meerut & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 334
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-14
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 33606 of 2019
- **Bench:** Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hemant-kumar-anr-v-presiding-officer-motor-accident-claims-tribunal-meerut-ors-44993
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules
1998 - Rule 220-B - Susamma Thomas
Guidelines - Securitization of amount to
safeguard interest of minors, illiterate
claimants and widow - Applicabilty -
Sufficient discretion has been given to
the Tribunal not to insist on investment
of the compensation amount in long
4 All. Heman Kumar & Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Meerut & Ors. 335
term fixed deposit and to release even
the whole amount in the case of literate
persons - Lok Adalat appears to continue
to
harbor the
impression that
the
amounts which are decided and are
liable to be paid upon claims being
compromised or settled must necessarily
and in all situations be securitized -
Course adopted by the Lok Adalat
evidences a total lack of consideration
upon
the true
intent and purpose
underlying the statutory provision as
well as the guidelines framed by the
Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas and
the exposition of the law in Padma. (Para
8 & 9)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procedure and can be followed excluding
requirement of any other procedure and
principles of natural justice are not
attracted in the case in hand.

237. Before parting, we may also
observe that litigation initiated by petitioners
on the one hand has given enough time to
petitioners to continue to hold and enjoy land
in dispute and simultaneously has denied
opportunity to respondent authorities to take
possession of land in question for the purpose
of carrying out developmental activities where
time is a matter of essence. The impugned
notice was issued on 18.06.2018 and for more
than fifteen months petitioners have already
availed benefit of possession of land in dispute
and enjoyed the same without spending even
a single penny towards rent, damages,
compensation for such enjoyment. Land in
question is required for developmental
activities in furtherance of developing
Prayagraj
City
as
"Smart
City".
Developmental activities required an early
action, but, by indulging in litigation,
petitioners
have
already
delayed
it
sufficiently,therefore, even if what petitioners'
claim that they should have been given notice
or sufficient time to vacate, the same has
already been achieved as petitioners had
already enough time with them. It is, thus, a fit
case where we do not find that any other
technicality should be allowed to intervene
and, earliest is the better that possession of
land is transferred to respondents so that
developmental activities may proceed without
any further delay.

238. In view of above discussion,
we do not find any merit in all the
petitions. All the writ petitions are
accordingly dismissed.

239. However, considering the facts
and circumstances and also the fact that
petitioners already enjoyed interim order
passed by this Court and continued in
possession over land in dispute for the last
almost more than a year, we direct
petitioners to vacate disputed land within
one month from the date of delivery of
judgment.

240. Let a copy of this judgment be
forwarded to Chief Secretary, U.P.
Lucknow and Principal Secretary, Urban
Development,
U.P.
Lucknow,
for
considering policy of freehold in the light
of observations made in paras 181 to 183
of
judgment
and
take
appropriate
decision.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A334

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 33606 of 2019
&
Writ-C No. 33176 of 2019

Hemant Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal Meerut & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Komal Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
-----

A. Civil Law - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules
1998 - Rule 220-B - Susamma Thomas
Guidelines - Securitization of amount to
safeguard interest of minors, illiterate
claimants and widow - Applicabilty -
Sufficient discretion has been given to
the Tribunal not to insist on investment
of the compensation amount in long
4 All. Heman Kumar & Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Meerut & Ors. 335
term fixed deposit and to release even
the whole amount in the case of literate
persons - Lok Adalat appears to continue
to
harbor the
impression that
the
amounts which are decided and are
liable to be paid upon claims being
compromised or settled must necessarily
and in all situations be securitized -
Course adopted by the Lok Adalat
evidences a total lack of consideration
upon
the true
intent and purpose
underlying the statutory provision as
well as the guidelines framed by the
Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas and
the exposition of the law in Padma. (Para
8 & 9)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited: -

1. General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs
Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176

2. A.V. Padma and others Vs. R. Venugopal
and others (2012) 3 SCC 378

(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.)

1. Affidavits of service have been
filed by the petitioners which are taken on
record. From the averments made therein
it is evident that the Insurance Company
stands duly served.

2. Both these petitions impugn
orders
passed
by
the
Lok
Adalat
proceeding to direct the securitization and
placement in deposit of substantial sums
that had come to be settled and agreed to
be paid by the Insurance Company in
respect of a claim that came to be settled
inter partes.

3. In Writ-C No. 33606 of 2019, out
of the total sum agreed between the
parties, of Rs. 4,50,000 the Lok Adalat
has proceeded to direct that a sum of Rs.
100,000/- be placed in a fixed deposit of a
Nationalised Bank for a period of five
years and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- be
released. Insofar as the claimant No. 2 is
concerned, it has provided that a sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded shall be placed in
a fixed deposit of a Nationalised Bank for
a period of five years. The petitioner No.
1 is the father of the deceased. The
petitioner No 2 is the son who, though a
minor at the time when the incident
occurred,
had
admittedly
attained
majority and was a signatory and a party
to the compromise that was placed on the
record of the Lok Adalat.

4. In Writ-C No. 33176 of 2019, the
petitioner No. 1 is the mother while the
petitioner No. 2 is the father of the
deceased. Both the petitioners are the
parents of Abhishek Dixit, the deceased
son. In this case also the Lok Adalat has
made arrangements on similar lines and
directed placement of a major part of the
sum which was agreed to inter partes to
be placed in a fixed deposit of a
Nationalised Bank.

5. The procedure which the Tribunal
is obliged to follow in order to secure the
interest of a person under a legal
disability or where some of the claimants
are minors has been provided for in Rule
220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules
1998 which reads thus:-

"220B-. 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
women or such person during his
disability in such manner as the Claims
Tribunal may direct to be paid to any
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 the 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 fiend 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
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 of award
amounts set out in sub-rule (4) unless it 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
4 All. Heman Kumar & Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Meerut & Ors. 337
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."

7. The Supreme Court had in the
matter of General Manager, Kerala
S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas1 framed
the following guidelines which were to
guide Tribunals in the matter of securing
the interests of parties:-

"(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.

(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."

7. Those guidelines were noticed
again in a subsequent decision rendered
by two learned Judges of the Supreme
Court in A.V. Padma and others Vs. R.
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Venugopal and others2 where the
following observations came to be made:-

"4. In the case of Susamma
Thomas (supra), this 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". Even
as per the guidelines issued by this 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 lump sum 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 semiilliterate 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 ors.
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
4 All. Heman Kumar & Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Meerut & Ors. 339
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. 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. Despite the lucid explanation in
Padma in respect of the underlying intent
of the guidelines framed by the Supreme
Court, the Lok Adalat appears to continue
to harbor the impression that the amounts
which are decided and are liable to be
paid upon claims being compromised or
settled must necessarily and in all
situations be securitized. That clearly is
neither the intent of Rule 220-B nor does
that provision mandate or command such
recourse.

9. As this Court reads the orders
impugned in these two writ petitions, it is
manifest that the provisions made in Rule
220-B have neither been alluded to nor
considered. The course adopted by the
Lok Adalat evidences a total lack of
consideration upon the true intent and
purpose underlying the statutory provision
as well as the guidelines framed by the
Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas and
the exposition of the law in Padma.

10. The Lok Adalat also does not
ascribe a single reason in support of the
directions as framed. At least the orders
passed do not establish the conferment of
any consideration as to why the amounts
as settled by way of compromise were not
liable to be released in favour of the
claimants. It becomes pertinent to note
that the rigidity of the attitude which has
been adopted by the Lok Adalat and as is
evident from the orders passed in these
two writ petitions mirrors what fell for
adverse comment in Padma. The Lok
Adalat therefore would be well advised to
bear the principles enunciated both in
Susamma Thomas and Padma in mind
before passing orders for securitization of
the amounts that are settled. In any case,
making of such arrangements must adhere
to the provisions which are made in Rule
220-B and which has been referred to
hereinabove. Since the orders impugned
fail to abide by the directions issued and
the law as declared by the Supreme Court,
the Court finds itself unable to sustain the
impugned orders.
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Before parting the Court deems
it apposite to place the following advisory
note for the consideration of Lok Adalats
in general on record. On being asked by
the Court to place the compromise terms
on record, it was submitted that the same
has not been made available to parties. It
was stated by learned counsels that
although compromise terms are placed on
the record and bear the signatures of all
respective parties, copies thereof have not
been provided to the claimants. It was
submitted that Lok Adalats in general are
adopting this procedure and that copies of
the
compromise/settlement
are
not
provided. The Court finds no justification
or logic behind the procedure so adopted.
If the compromise terms are part of the
record, there can be no justifiable reason
or cause for copies thereof not being
provided to parties. This issue would
assume added significance in situations
where orders of the Lok Adalat are
assailed before Courts or other judicial
fora and the Courts or Tribunals are
required to ascertain as to which of the
parties had in fact agreed to the
compromise terms. Consequently the
Secretary
of
the
Legal
Services
Authorities of the State is directed to
instruct all Lok Adalats to ensure that
copies of the settlement terms are
provided to parties on an application in
that respect being made. The Registrar
General is requested to place a copy of
this order before the Secretary of the
Legal Services Authority for further
compliance.

12. Accordingly the writ petitions
are allowed. The impugned orders dated
14 September 2019 and 9 October 2019
passed in Writ-C Nos. 33606 of 2019 and
33176 of 2019 respectively insofar as they
direct for placement of the amounts in a
fixed deposit of a Nationalised Bank are
quashed. The matter shall stand remitted
to the Lok Adalat for passing a decision
afresh in light of the observations entered
above. The exercise of reconsideration
shall be concluded with expedition and in
any case not later than within two months
from the date of presentation of a certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A340

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C. No. 35706 of 2019

Insilco Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vikas Singh, Sri Abhimanyu Chopra,
Sri Varun Singh, Sri Ram Kaushik, Sri
Tanmay Sharma, Priyanka Midha, Sri Ram
M. Kaushik

Counsel for the Respondents:
-

A. Civil Law - Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981- Section 21 and
22- Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 25 and 26 -
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board -
application for the purpose of seeking
consent to operate - application rejected.

The unit has not yet evolved any methodology
for achieving prescribed standard of Sodium
Absorption Ratio (SAR) value of 26 without
dilution with fresh water. It has also been
specifically stated by the Chief Environment
Officer that the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control