# Smt. Nasreen and Anr v. U.P.S.R.T.C and Anr

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 687
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-04-22
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-nasreen-and-anr-v-u-p-s-r-t-c-and-anr-42554
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Motor Vehicle Amendment Rules 2011Rule
220
B-
Release
of
amount
of
Compensation-invested in fixed deposit-
premature release application-on ground to
repay the amount of loan-rejection by
Tribunal-held not proper purpose for repay
of loan-itself to improve the financial
condition
of
claimant-who
are
major
direction to release amount of fixed deposit
given.

Held: Para-12
In the instant case, the claimants have
made a categorical statement that the
amount was required to be encashed
prematurely in order to repay the loans,
which they had taken. Obviously, if the
loan is repaid, their economic condition
would improve, which would ultimately
lead to improving their income. Such
ground is a relevant ground coupled with
the fact that the claimants are major and
minor children are not involved which
would require the compensation amount
to be kept in a fixed deposit for their
upkeep. Further, if the amount is invested
for a period of time, the claimants will not
be able to enjoy the compensation.
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Case Law discussed:
1994 (1) TAC 323; 2007 (2) TAC 755; 2005(2)
TAC 378

## Text

2 All] Smt.Nasreen and Anr. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr.
687
becomes maintainable, but in the instant
case, the Court finds that the petitioners do
not have the same cause of action. In fact,
each of the petitioners have an independent
cause of action. Each of the petitioners have
filed the petition for the enforcement of their
individual rights, namely, for release of their
provident fund dues and for payment of
pension. There is no common order nor a
common act or transaction.

19. The Court is of the opinion that
in the instant case, a joint writ petition
filed by the petitioners is for the
enforcement of its individual rights, and
consequently, joinder of more than one
person though permissible, but where the
cause of action is similar and not the
same, separate court fees is payable.

20. In the light of the aforesaid, the
Court in all humility is of the view that
the Division Bench in Saroja Nand case
(Supra) did not consider paragraphs
36,37,38,39,40 and 41 of the decision of
the Full Bench in Umesh Chand's Case
(Supra)

21. This Court is of the view that in
the light of the decision of the Full Bench
in Umesh Chand (Supra), each of the
petitioners, having a separate cause of
action, and having filed a joint writ
petition
for
enforcement
of
their
individual rights are liable to pay separate
court fee. The order of the Taxing Officer
is affirmed. The application of the
petitioners dated 11.04.2013 is rejected.
The petitioners are consequently directed
to cure the defect and pay the court fee as
reported by the stamp reporter within a
week.

22. Put up this matter on Monday
i.e. 06.05.2013 for admission.

23. The Registrar General is directed
to circulate this order to the Stamp
Reporter as well as to the Taxing Officer
within two weeks.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21853 Of 2013

Smt. Nasreen and Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C and Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Aashish Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:

U.P. Motor Vehicle Amendment Rules 2011Rule
220
B-
Release
of
amount
of
Compensation-invested in fixed deposit-
premature release application-on ground to
repay the amount of loan-rejection by
Tribunal-held not proper purpose for repay
of loan-itself to improve the financial
condition
of
claimant-who
are
major
direction to release amount of fixed deposit
given.

Held: Para-12
In the instant case, the claimants have
made a categorical statement that the
amount was required to be encashed
prematurely in order to repay the loans,
which they had taken. Obviously, if the
loan is repaid, their economic condition
would improve, which would ultimately
lead to improving their income. Such
ground is a relevant ground coupled with
the fact that the claimants are major and
minor children are not involved which
would require the compensation amount
to be kept in a fixed deposit for their
upkeep. Further, if the amount is invested
for a period of time, the claimants will not
be able to enjoy the compensation.
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Case Law discussed:
1994 (1) TAC 323; 2007 (2) TAC 755; 2005(2)
TAC 378

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.)

1. Heard Sri Aashish Srivastava, the
learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner No.1 is the widow
and the petitioner No.2 is the mother of the
deceased who died in an accident and a claim
application was filed under the provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal gave an award dated
10.5.2012 awarding a compensation of
Rs.2,83,480/- out of which the widow was to
be given a sum of Rs.23,480/- in cash and
the balance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the
widow, and to the parents, a total sum of
Rs.1,30,000/- was to be paid, but, this
amount was to be kept in a fixed deposit for
a period of five years. Pursuant to the award,
the U.P.S.R.T.C., against whom the claim
was filed, accepted the award and deposited
the amount before the Accident Claims
Tribunal. Based on the direction of the
Tribunal, the amount was invested and a sum
of Rs.23,480/- was released in favour of the
petitioner No.1.

3. The widow, petitioner No.1 and the
mother, petitioner No.2, thereafter filed an
undated application praying for the release of
the amount on the ground that they have
taken loans from various persons and that the
amount was required in order to clear the
debts. This application has been rejected by
the Tribunal by an order dated 22.2.2013
again which the present writ petition has
been filed.

4. The Tribunal has rejected the
claim of the petitioner on the ground that
in view of Rule 220 -B of the Motor
Vehicle Rules as inserted by the U.P.
Motor Vehicles 11th Amendment Rules,
2011, which came into force w.e.f.
26.9.2011, the amount of compensation
was rightly directed to be kept in a Fixed
Deposit and that the amount could not be
prematurely released in favour of the
claimant.
The
Tribunal
accordingly
rejected the application. The petitioner,
being aggrieved by the said order, has
filed the present writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the Court is of the
opinion, that the writ petition can be
disposed of at the admission stage itself
without calling for a counter affidavit
since the respondents have already
deposited the amount and are no longer
concerned with the end result.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of
General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Sushamma
Thomas & Ors., 1994 (1) TAC 323, issued
certain guidelines for the Claims Tribunal
while awarding compensation. The said
guidelines are extracted hereunder:-

(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
2 All] Smt.Nasreen and Anr. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr.
689
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. These guidelines have now been
incorporated by the Legislature and Rule
220-B of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle
Rules,1998 have been inserted in the Rules.

8.

Where
an
amount
of
compensation is directed to be kept for a
fixed period, the said amount can be
withdrawn
or
encashed
prematurely
provided a bonfide application is made for
early withdrawal of the compensation and
reasons are provided. In Shaheen Bano
vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
and others, 2007(2)TAC 755, the Court
held, that if a bonafide purpose is made
for early withdrawal of the compensation,
the Tribunal should consider the bonafide
purpose and should not deny the claimant
on the sole ground that premature
encashment cannot be done.

9. In Yogendra Singh vs. Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal and others,
2005(2)TAC 378, the Court held that
neither the Tribunal nor the Insurance
Company had any right to object to the
encashment of the money.

10. In the instant case, the claimants
are major and as per the guidelines of the
Supreme Court, in Sushamma Thomas case
(supra), which has now been incorporated in
Rule 220 of the Rules, the underlying
purpose of securing the interest of the
claimant
by
putting
the
amount
of
compensation in a fixed deposit is to protect
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
their interest in given circumstances, such as,
where the claimants are minors and their
upkeep was required to be protected or
where the claimants are suffering from
personal injury and the amount was required
for further treatment or where the Tribunal
thinks that the claimants are illiterate and,
therefore, the amount was required to be
invested so that the claim amount was not
wasted and such other circumstances, which
are required to be contemplated by the
Tribunal while keeping the amount of
compensation in a fixed deposit. Other than
that, the Tribunal should release the amount
to the claimants so that they can reap the
benefits of the compensation.

11. Rule 220-B further provides that
the amount so invested can be withdrawn, if
a case is made out that the amount is required
to purchase any moveable or immovable
property for improving the income of the
claimant or the amount is required for
expansion of the business or considering the
age, fiscal background and strata of the
society to which the claimants belong or such
larger interest that could be taken into
consideration by the Tribunal.

12. In the instant case, the claimants
have made a categorical statement that the
amount was required to be encashed
prematurely in order to repay the loans,
which they had taken. Obviously, if the
loan is repaid, their economic condition
would improve, which would ultimately
lead to improving their income. Such
ground is a relevant ground coupled with
the fact that the claimants are major and
minor children are not involved which
would require the compensation amount
to be kept in a fixed deposit for their
upkeep. Further, if the amount is invested
for a period of time, the claimants will not
be able to enjoy the compensation.

13. In the light of the aforesaid, the
Court is of the opinion, that the Tribunal
committed a manifest error in rejecting the
application of the petitioner's mechanically
without considering the relevant criteria
given in Rule 220-B of the Rules.

14. Consequently, the impugned
order cannot be sustained and is quashed.
The writ petition is allowed and a writ of
mandamus is issued to the Tribunal to
release the amount in favour of the
petitioners by encashing the F.D.Rs.
prematurely.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2013.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22308 Of 2013

Devo Mahesha College of Engg. and
Tech.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Khanna

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Neeraj Tiwari
Constitution of India Art. 226- "Natural
Justice"-rejection
of
application
for
establishing Engineering College-passed
by member Secretary-placing reliance
upon
report
submitted
by
standing
appeal
committee-without
affording
opportunity to narrate correct factual
position
entails
civil
consequencesopportunity of hearing held-must-order
not sustainable.

Held: Para-9 &10
9.Serious
civil
consequences
follow
because of rejection of the application
for recognition of institutions, as they