# Smt. Savinay Jain v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mainpuri

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 593
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-03-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32863 of 2004
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-savinay-jain-v-motor-accident-claim-tribunal-mainpuri-40265
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Act,
1988-Award
of
Compensation-Part of amount directed
to be invested for one year in fixed
deposit-Application for withdrawal of
same on vague grounds rejected-Writ
against-Held, Tribunal while disbursing
amount has to act in interest of claimant,
as per guidelines laid down by apex
court-Submission that if no condition is
put
in award
subsequently
tribunal
cannot while releasing amount direct for
investment of amount on take any other
safety measures cannot be accepted.

Held: Para 7 & 8

Thus the Tribunal while disbursing the
amount has to act in the interest of the
claimant in accordance with the guide
lines laid down by the Apex Court. The
submission that if no condition is put in
the award subsequently Tribunal cannot
while releasing the amount direct for
investment of the amount or take any
other
safety
measures
cannot
be
accepted.

However, according to the guidelines as
laid down by the Apex Court itself, it is
open for the claimant to make an
application and on sufficient reasons, the
Tribunal can always release the amount.
In the present case, the Tribunal has
rejected the amount. In the present
case, the Tribunal has rejected the
application of the petitioner observing
that no details of the business or other
important work has been disclosed in the
application. Copy of the application has
been filed as annexure 3 to the writ
petition which clearly shows that there
was no details of the purpose for which
amount was sought to be withdrawn. No
error
has
been
committed
by
the
Tribunal
in
rejecting
such
vague
application which do not mention any
details or purpose for which amount was
sought to be withdrawn.
Case law discussed:
1994 ACJ 1 (SC)
(1991) 4 SCC 584
1983 ACJ 57 (Guj)

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Smt. Savinay Jain V. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mainpuri
593

In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I find that the plaintiffrespondent, when had failed to perform
his part of the contract in terms of Section
16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, had no
right to obtain a decree of specific
performance of agreement in question and
the appeal of the defendant-appellant
should be allowed.

In the result, this appeal is allowed
and the judgment and decree dated
31.1.1981 passed by the 1st Appellate
Court is hereby set aside. The decree of
the trial court dated 6.5.1975 is hereby
restored.
Appeal Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.3.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32863 of 2004

Smt. Savinay Jain

...Petitioner
Versus
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mainpuri

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Y.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:

Motor
Vehicles
Act,
1988-Award
of
Compensation-Part of amount directed
to be invested for one year in fixed
deposit-Application for withdrawal of
same on vague grounds rejected-Writ
against-Held, Tribunal while disbursing
amount has to act in interest of claimant,
as per guidelines laid down by apex
court-Submission that if no condition is
put
in award
subsequently
tribunal
cannot while releasing amount direct for
investment of amount on take any other
safety measures cannot be accepted.

Held: Para 7 & 8

Thus the Tribunal while disbursing the
amount has to act in the interest of the
claimant in accordance with the guide
lines laid down by the Apex Court. The
submission that if no condition is put in
the award subsequently Tribunal cannot
while releasing the amount direct for
investment of the amount or take any
other
safety
measures
cannot
be
accepted.

However, according to the guidelines as
laid down by the Apex Court itself, it is
open for the claimant to make an
application and on sufficient reasons, the
Tribunal can always release the amount.
In the present case, the Tribunal has
rejected the amount. In the present
case, the Tribunal has rejected the
application of the petitioner observing
that no details of the business or other
important work has been disclosed in the
application. Copy of the application has
been filed as annexure 3 to the writ
petition which clearly shows that there
was no details of the purpose for which
amount was sought to be withdrawn. No
error
has
been
committed
by
the
Tribunal
in
rejecting
such
vague
application which do not mention any
details or purpose for which amount was
sought to be withdrawn.
Case law discussed:
1994 ACJ 1 (SC)
(1991) 4 SCC 584
1983 ACJ 57 (Guj)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition, the petitioner
has prayed for quashing order dated
31.7.2004 passed by Motor accident
Claim Tribunal by which the application
of the petitioner for release of the amount
deposited with Tribunal has been rejected.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
594
The Motor Accident claims Tribunal
vide its award dated 3.10.2001 awarded a
compensation of Rs.1,50,000.00 along
with 9% interest from the date of filing of
claim petition. In pursuance of the award
an
amount
of
Rs.2,24,250/-
was
deposited. The motor accident claims
tribunal after receipt of the money passed
order dated 15.3.2004 that an amount of
Rs.1,24,000/- be invested for one year a
fixed deposit. Petitioner on 15.7.2004
moved
an
application
praying
that
petitioner be paid the entire amount. The
petitioner in the application vaguely
stated that she required the amount for
business and other important works. The
Tribunal observed that petitioner has
already been given 1,00,000.00 lack in
case, and the Tribunal observed that in the
application it has not been stated that
which business will be done by the
petitioner and no other details have been
given.

2. The learned counsel for the
petitioner challenging the order contended
that the Tribunal while giving an award
dated 3.10.2001 did not put any condition
for the release of the amount, hence the
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reject the
application of the petitioner.

3. I have considered the submissions
of the parties and perused the record.
Petitioner while returning by Vehicle Tata
Sumo,
the
vehicle
U.P.084/5552
negligently hit in which the daughter of
claimant Kumari Sonali Jain died. It is
true that in the award passed by the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal
that
no
condition for release of the amount was
mentioned. However, when the petitioner
made an application for releasing the
amount, the same has been rejected.

4. The contention of the counsel for
the petitioner is that when no condition
was put in the award, the application for
release of the amount cannot be rejected.
The guide lines which have been laid
down by the Apex Court for release of the
amount awarded in compensation has to
be kept in mind by the Tribunal while
releasing the amount. The Apex Court in
1994 ACJ 1 General Manager, Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation versus
Susamma Thomas and others laid down
following in paragraph 16 & 17.

"16. Pursuant to the earlier orders of
this court a sum of Rs.3,98,000/- had been
invested out of which a sum of
Rs.3,60,000 is invested in a nationalised
Bank. It is appropriate that the appellant
shall deposit the balance of the amount
together with accrued interest in the
Tribunal. The Tribunal will take into
account what measures of safety are
required to be adopted to protect the
interests of the minors. It is also necessary
to bear in mind that even in respect of the
claimants who are sui juris, their interests,
if they are illiterate or semiliterate, must
also
be
protected
from
possible
exploitation.

17. In case of compensation for death
it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep
in mind the principles enunciated by this
court in Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union
of India, 1991 (4) Supreme Court cases
584,
in
the
matter
of
appropriate
investments to safeguard the feed from
being frittered away by the neneficiaries
owing
to
ignorance,
illiteracy
and
susceptible to exploitation. In that case
approving the judgment of the Gujrat
High Court in Muljibhai Ajasrambhai
Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
1983 ACJ 57 (Gujrat), this court offered
the following guidelines:

(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in
the case of minors, invariably order the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Smt. Savinay Jain V. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mainpuri
595
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,

(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 rogue to withdraw
money.

(iii) In the case of semiliterate
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 expanding 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 relaxation 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 (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 deposit is made it
should be on 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
FDR. can be Liquidated.

5. These guidelines should be borne
in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of
compensation in accident cases.

6. The observation of the Apex
Court in paragraph 16 is that the Tribunal
will take into account as to what measures
of safety are required to be adopted to
protect the interests of the minors.

7.

Thus
the
Tribunal
while
disbursing the amount has to act in the
interest of the claimant in accordance with
the guide lines laid down by the Apex
Court. The submission that if no condition
is put in the award subsequently Tribunal
cannot while releasing the amount direct
for investment of the amount or take any
other safety measures cannot be accepted.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
596
8. However, according to the
guidelines as laid down by the Apex
Court itself, it is open for the claimant to
make an application and on sufficient
reasons, the Tribunal can always release
the amount. In the present case, the
Tribunal has rejected the amount. In the
present case, the Tribunal has rejected the
application of the petitioner observing
that no details of the business or other
important work has been disclosed in the
application. Copy of the application has
been filed as annexure 3 to the writ
petition which clearly shows that there
was no details of the purpose for which
amount was sought to be withdrawn. No
error has been committed by the Tribunal
in rejecting such vague application which
do not mention any details or purpose for
which
amount
was
sought
to
be
withdrawn.

9. In view of the aforesaid, it is held
that no error has been committed by the
Tribunal in rejecting the application.
However, in case petitioner makes an
application giving details of purpose for
which amount is sought to be withdrawn,
the Tribunal will consider the same and
pass appropriate order in accordance with
law.

10. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is disposed of.
Petition disposed off.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.8.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Special Appeal No. 817 of 2004

Provincial Medical Services Association,
U.P. and others

...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ravi Kant
Sri Sishir Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.M.A. Kazmi
S.C.

Contempt
of
Court
Act-Section
12
Jurisdiction of Contempt Court-Power of
punishment inherent power of every
Court of record-Court while exercising
power can not go beyond order passed
earlier-alleged to be not complied withBut in exceptional circumstances, where
facts so warrant, Court can also pass
orders
if
necessary
in
facts
and
circumstances of case.

Held: Para 16

Thus, in view of the above, the law on
the issue can be summarised that the
power of punishing a contemner, is
inherent in every Court of record. It is
essential and necessary for the purpose
of smooth working of the Court. The
Court while exercising the power of
contempt generally does not go beyond
the order passed earlier which has not
been complied with, but in exceptional
circumstances,
where
the
facts
so
warrant the Court can also pass the
orders which are necessary in the facts
and circumstances of the case.