# (Matters under Article 227) Smt. Manju Devi & Ors v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Spl. Judge/A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1209
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-09-15
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 4714 of 2015
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/matters-under-article-227-smt-manju-devi-ors-v-motor-accident-claims-tribunal-43374
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-227-Application
to with draw half of amount-invested in
fixed deposit-Accident Claim Tribunal
rejected saying ruse to withdraw the
amount by claimant-held-Tribunal ought
to have approach the problems of
claimant-who were indebted by Bank
loan-order
not
sustainable-quasheddirection to reduce the amount by
forthwith.
Held: Para-9 & 11

## Text

3 All] Smt. Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Spl. Judge/A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar 1209
there was possibility of the petitioner's
indulging in similar activities prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order on his
being enlarged on bail. He has not
recorded his satisfaction in the impugned
order that there was real possibility of his
being released on bail which omission in
our opinion has totally vitiated the
impugned order.
17. The writ petition accordingly
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 20.09.2014 passed by District
Magistrate, Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.
18. Let the petitioner, Vinod
Valmiki be released from jail forthwith, if
he is not wanted in any other case. There
shall be however, no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 4714 of 2015
(Matters under Article 227)
Smt. Manju Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Spl.
Judge/A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Onkar Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
---
Constitution of India, Art.-227-Application
to with draw half of amount-invested in
fixed deposit-Accident Claim Tribunal
rejected saying ruse to withdraw the
amount by claimant-held-Tribunal ought
to have approach the problems of
claimant-who were indebted by Bank
loan-order
not
sustainable-quasheddirection to reduce the amount by
forthwith.
Held: Para-9 & 11
9.

Thus,
once
the
application
for
withdrawal of money is filed by the
claimants, the Tribunal has to apply its
mind whether it would be in the interest of
the widow, or illiterate, or minor claimants
to release the amount or not. While taking
decision in that regard, the Tribunal has to
approach the problem from the view point
of the claimants.
11. As regard the shares of petitioner no.
1, it is noticeable that there are two
demand notices brought on record by her.
The first notice dated 29.4.2014 by
Allahabad Bank requires her to pay a sum
of Rs.59,339/- as the amount due and
payable towards loan taken by her late
husband Dhamendra Mohan. The second
notice of even date refers a loan taken by
her on 22.10.2012, wherein she is required
to pay Rs.37,611/- alongwith interest.
Thus, there was sufficient material before
the Tribunal to establish that the claimants
were indebted to the bank and were in
need of money.
Case Law discussed:
(1994) 2 SCC 176; 2012 ACJ 698.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. The petitioners alongwith one Smt.
Vedvati made a claim for grant of
compensation under the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 on account of
death of Dharmendra Mohan in a motor
accident. The petition was registered as claim
petition no. 401 of 2011. Dharmendra
Mohan, who died in a road accident, was the
husband of petitioner no.1, father of
petitioners no.2 and 3 and son of Smt.
1210
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vedvati. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal by an award dated 31.10.2012
allowed the claim petition in part and
directed for payment of compensation of
Rs.3,19,000/- to the claimant alongwith
interest @ 6% per annum, since 19.4.2011,
the date on which the claim petition was
filed. The award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal further provides
that petitioner no.1 would become entitled to
half of amount of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal and the remaining claimants
would each get 1/6 of the total amount. A
further direction was issued that the amount
coming to the share of the petitioner no.1 and
Smt.Vedvati would be released only to the
extent of half of the amount and the
remaining amount would be invested in a
fixed deposit of a nationalised bank for a
period of three years. In respect of petitioners
no. 2 and 3, there was a specific direction for
payment of entire amount coming to their
share by means of a crossed cheque.
3. In compliance of the award, it is not
in dispute that a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- was
deposited in Indian Bank by a cheque dated
5/2/2014. The Tribunal by order dated
9.4.2014 directed the bank to apportion the
amount deposited in favour of the claimants
in the following manner :-
half of the amount alongwith interest
to be deposited in favour of the petitioner
no.1, 1/6 each in favour of petitioner no.2
and 3 and the remaining 1/6 in favour of
Smt. Vedvati. A further direction was
issued to the bank that half of the amount
coming to the share of each of the
claimant would be paid to them and
remaining half would be deposited in
fixed deposit for a period of three years.
4. Evidently, the direction issued by
the Tribunal for payment of only half of
the amount coming to the share of
petitioner no. 2 and 3 and for deposit of
remaining half in a fixed deposit was
contrary to the direction given in the
award dated 31.10.2012, whereunder the
entire amount coming to their share was
to be paid by means of a cheque.
5. The petitioners moved an
application dated 11.2.2014 with a request
to the Tribunal to permit premature
encashment of fixed deposit receipts. It
was stated in the application that the
deceased Dharmendra Mohan had taken
loan from the bank under KSY scheme
and to liquidate the debt, a sum of
Rs.59,339/- was to be paid. Alongwith the
application, various notices issued by the
Allahabad
Bank
calling
upon
the
petitioners to deposit the remaining
amount due and payable under KSY
scheme, failing which legal action would
be taken against them, were duly filed.
The first notice dated 29.4.2014 calls
upon petitioner no.1 to pay a sum of
Rs.59,339/-, the second notice dated
29.4.2014 requires petitioner no.1 to pay a
sum of Rs. 37,611/-, notices of even date
requires petitioner nos. 3 and 4 to deposit
Rs.57,960/- and Rs.37,386/- respectively.
6. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal
by
impugned
order
dated
22.4.2014 rejected the application filed by
the petitioners for premature encashment
of the fixed deposit receipts. The Tribunal
has held that it appears from the notice
that the aforesaid loan was taken by them
in the year 2012 whereas, under the award
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
sufficient amount was paid to them on
9.4.2014. As such, they could have
appropriated the said amount towards
payment of the loan liability but it seems
that the same was not done and thus the
3 All] Smt. Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Spl. Judge/A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar 1211
application is merely a ploy employed by
the claimant to withdraw the money.
7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal is manifestly
illegal and contrary to the guidelines, laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of
General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport
Corporation
vs
Susamma
Thomas2. It is further urged that the
Tribunal has failed to apply its mind to
the genuine need of money on part of the
petitioners to liquidate the loan liability.
The Tribunal, it is urged, has failed to
take into consideration the fact that the
only person in the family who was
earning, had expired and therefore, certain
amount was also required for daily
expenses and thus, it cannot be said that
the application filed by them was a ploy
to get the fixed deposit receipts encashed
prematurely.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of
Susamma Thomas (supra) has issued
certain guidelines in order to "safeguard
the feed from being frittered away by the
beneficiaries
owing
to
ignorance,
illiteracy
and
susceptibility
to
exploitation". However, even according to
the guidelines given in the said judgment,
the Tribunal is required to apply its mind
to the need of the claimants. It has been
held in the said decision that in case the
money is required for expending any
existing business or for purchase of
property for earning the livelihood, the
Tribunal can release the whole amount of
compensation to the claimant.
9. The directions given by the
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision
have since been incorporated by carrying
out amendment in the U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 2008, by inserting section 220-B,
relevant extract whereof is as under :-
"(i).The Claims Tribunal should, in
the case of minors, invariably order
amount of compensation awarded to the
minor invested in long term fixed deposits
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;
(v). In the case of widows the Claims
Tribunal should invariably follow the
procedure set out in (i) above;
(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."
Thus, once the application for
withdrawal of money is filed by the
claimants, the Tribunal has to apply its
mind whether it would be in the interest
of the widow, or illiterate, or minor
claimants to release the amount or not.
While taking decision in that regard, the
Tribunal has to approach the problem
from the view point of the claimants.
10. In the instant case,the first thing
which the Tribunal failed to notice is that
in the original award, direction was for
payment of entire compensation coming
to the share of the petitioners no. 2 and 3
directly to them by means of a crossed
cheque. No part of the amount coming to
their share was to be deposited in fixed
deposit.
However,
contrary
to
the
direction in the award dated 31.10.2012,
the Tribunal vide its order dated 9.4.2014
required the bank to invest 50% of the
1212
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount coming to their shares in fixed
deposit. Thus, the direction for deposit of
50% of the amount coming to the share of
petitioner no.2 and 3 being contrary to the
directions given in the award dated
31.10.2012, cannot be sustained and is
hereby set aside.
11. As regard the shares of petitioner
no. 1, it is noticeable that there are two
demand notices brought on record by her.
The first notice dated 29.4.2014 by
Allahabad Bank requires her to pay a sum
of Rs.59,339/- as the amount due and
payable towards loan taken by her late
husband Dhamendra Mohan. The second
notice of even date refers a loan taken by
her on 22.10.2012, wherein she is
required to pay Rs.37,611/- alongwith
interest. Thus,
there was
sufficient
material before the Tribunal to establish
that the claimants were indebted to the
bank and were in need of money.
12. A supplementary affidavit has
been filed by learned counsel for the
petitioners
stating
that
a
sum
of
Rs.88,000/- was paid to petitioner no.1
and an equal amount was deposited in
fixed deposit in her name. It is not in
dispute that Dharmendra Mohan, the
bread earner for the family had died. In
such situation, it should have been
visualised by the Tribunal that there are
several other liabilities apart from daily
expenses which the claimants were to
meet. In such view of the matter, the
request for release of additional sum
which is in fixed deposit cannot be said to
be unreasonable or arbitrary or a mere
ruse to withdraw the amount. The
Tribunal while deciding the application
has approached the controversy in a
lopsided manner, without appreciating the
view point of the claimants.
13. In the case of A. V. Padma and
others vs. R. Venugopal and others3, the
Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of
money deposited in fixed deposit in
favour of widow to enable her to provide
a dwelling unit to her second daughter
who is co-owner in the house, but was
residing in a rented accommodation on
exorbitant rent. It is held that the widow
was obliged to provide shelter to her
daughter, and if the money remains
locked in fixed deposit, it would only
yield
paltry
interest,
whereas,
the
daughter would be compelled to pay
exorbitance rent. It was held that the
decision of the Tribunal to invest the
amount in fixed deposit was a result of
rigid and mechanical approach. The
decision fully supports the case of the
petitioner herein.
14. In view of the discussions made
above, the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal dated 22.4.2012 is set aside. The
application filed by the petitioners paper
no. 13-Ga shall stand allowed. The
tribunal
shall
permit
premature
encashment of the FDR in favour of the
petitioners, leaving alone the FDRs in the
name of Smt. Vedvati, for which no
request for premature encashment was
made.
15. The Tribunal shall ensure that
compliance of this order is made within a
period of three weeks from date of
production of certified copy of this order,
by the petitioners, before the Tribunal.
16. The petition stands allowed
accordingly.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2015