# Smt. Sudha & Anr v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/D.J. Etah & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1410
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-10-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53815 of 2014
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sudha-anr-v-motor-accident-claims-tribunal-d-j-etah-ors-43142
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Release
claimed amount-deposited by Insurance
company
towards
accident
compensation-claimant
being
poor
illiterate widow of deceased-application
to release Rs. 2 lacs for repairing of
dilapidated house-rejection by Tribunalmisinterpreting the guidelines of Apex
Court-held-not proper-quashed-direction
for immediate release with interest
given.
Held: Para-8
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
submits that in the instant case, in view of
the above, this Court finds that the
Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand and
had mechanically passed the order without
understanding and without appreciating
the distinction drawn by the Supreme
Court. The guidelines, which have now
been incorporated in the Rules was only to
safeguard the interest of the claimants
particularly the minors and the illiterates.
In the instant case the Court finds that the
application was meant for the release of
the money so that the petitioner's can get
her house repair by making boundary wall
and plaster, but the Tribunal has failed to
understand the need and urgency in the
matter and has mechanically passed the
order while rejecting the application.
Case Law discussed:
2014 (1) T.A.C. 630 (All.).

## Text

1410
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there is no challenge before the Court to
be considered at the behest of the first
respondent. On remand, the Collector
shall duly hear both the petitioner and the
first respondent and pass an appropriate
order in accordance with law quantifying
the
amount
of
compensation.
This
exercise shall be completed within a
period of three months of the receipt of a
certified copy of this order. In the
meantime, we direct that any payment
which has been made in compliance with
the impugned order of the Collector, shall
necessarily abide by the final result of the
proceedings.
12. The petition is, accordingly,
disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53815 of 2014
Smt. Sudha & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/D.J. Etah
& Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Upendra Upadhyay
Counsel for the Respondents
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Release
claimed amount-deposited by Insurance
company
towards
accident
compensation-claimant
being
poor
illiterate widow of deceased-application
to release Rs. 2 lacs for repairing of
dilapidated house-rejection by Tribunalmisinterpreting the guidelines of Apex
Court-held-not proper-quashed-direction
for immediate release with interest
given.
Held: Para-8
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
submits that in the instant case, in view of
the above, this Court finds that the
Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand and
had mechanically passed the order without
understanding and without appreciating
the distinction drawn by the Supreme
Court. The guidelines, which have now
been incorporated in the Rules was only to
safeguard the interest of the claimants
particularly the minors and the illiterates.
In the instant case the Court finds that the
application was meant for the release of
the money so that the petitioner's can get
her house repair by making boundary wall
and plaster, but the Tribunal has failed to
understand the need and urgency in the
matter and has mechanically passed the
order while rejecting the application.
Case Law discussed:
2014 (1) T.A.C. 630 (All.).
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition,
the
petitioners
has
challenged
the
impugned order dated 24.03.2014 passed
by the the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / District Judge, Etah.in Misc.
Case No. 18 of 2014 in M.A.C.P. No. 14
of 2012 (Smt. Sudha and another Vs.
Kamrujjama and others).
3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that petitioners has
filed the Motor Accident Claims Petition
No. 14 of 2012 (Smt. Sudha and another's
Vs.
Kamrujjama
and
others)
for
3 All].
Smt. Sudha & Anr. Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/D.J. Etah & Ors.
1411
compensation of the death of her husband
Subodh Kumar who died on account of
injuries sustained in the accident, which
was occurred on 13.12.2011.
4. The award was passed on
17.10.2013 and compensation of Rs.
3,99,000/- alongwith 7% per annum
interest was awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah.
5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that it is admitted
position that entire amount of the award
was deposited by the Insurance Company.
As per the directions given in the award,
Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in fixed
deposit scheme in the name of petitioner
no.2, Rishav Kumar Minor son of late
Subodh Kumar and Rs. 2,00,000/- was
deposited in fixed deposit in the name of
petitioner no.1, Smt. Sudha wife of late
Subodh Kumar and remaining amount of
the award of Rs. 1,49,000/- was released
in favour of petitioner no.1.
6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
submits
that
at
present
petitioners is suffering great hardship due
to dilapidated position of her house. She
had moved Misc. Application No. 18 of
2014 before the respondent no.1 to release
of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was kept in fixed
deposit scheme, so that she may construct
boundary wall and plastered of her house,
but said application has been rejected by
the respondent no.1 and same was
assailed by means of present writ petition.
7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has relied the judgment passed
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36701 of
2013 (Smt. Farmoodi Vs. Additional
District
Judge,
Court
No.9,
Muzaffarnagar and Others), reported in
2014 (1) T.A.C. 630 (All.). The relevant
portion of the said judgment is reproduced
herein below:-
"5. The purpose of keeping the
amount in a fixed deposit is for a specific
purpose. The Supreme Court in the case
of General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Sushamma
Thomas & Others, 1994 (1) TAC 323
issued certain guidelines to the Claims
Tribunal while awarding compensation.
The said guidelines are extracted below:-
"(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.
1412
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(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."
6. These guidelines have now been
incorporated by the legislature and Rule
220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules,
1998 have been inserted in the Rules.
9. The Supreme Court held that these
guidelines were issued to keep the amount
in a fixed deposit for a period of time was
mandatory only in the case of minors,
illiterate claimants and widows."
8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that in the instant case,
in view of the above, this Court finds that
the Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand
and had mechanically passed the order
without
understanding
and
without
appreciating the distinction drawn by the
Supreme Court. The guidelines, which
have now been incorporated in the Rules
was only to safeguard the interest of the
claimants particularly the minors and the
illiterates. In the instant case the Court
finds that the application was meant for
the release of the money so that the
petitioner's can get her house repair by
making boundary wall and plaster, but the
Tribunal has failed to understand the need
and urgency in the matter and has
mechanically passed the order while
rejecting the application.
9.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is
a literate widow. On the other hand, a
genuine reason has been given for the
release of the balance amount.
10. Consequently, without further
adverting on this issue, the Court is of the
opinion that the impugned order cannot be
sustained and is quashed.
11. The writ petition is allowed.
12. The petitioner is entitled for the
release of the amount as prayed by her.
The Tribunal is directed to release the
amount along with the interest so accrued
3 All].
Rajendri Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1413
immediately upon the receipt of the
certified copy of this order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54866 of 2014
Rajendri Devi & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gopal Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents
C.S.C., Suresh Singh
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Release
of land-acquired under Land Acquisition
Act-without disclosing particular of date
of notification u/s 4 and 6 of Act-without
disclosing
the
date
on
which
compensation received-claim based upon
letter dated 24.04.2014 by Principle
Secretary Industrial development-heldcan not be
ground of release under
section 48 without denotification of
government-where no possession takenwhere
compensation
given
and
possession taken-can not be released
pursuant
to
letter
referred
abovepetition dismissed.
Held: Para-6 & 7
6. We are of the considered opinion that
such Government Orders/Letters of the
Principal Secretary cannot be made a
tool to reopen the settled acquisition
proceedings specifically where the land
holder has accepted the compensation
without protest.
7. The State Government has to keep in
mind the provisions of Section 48 of the
Land Acquisition Act which confers a
right upon the State Government to
withdraw from the acquisition any land,
possession whereof has not been taken,
meaning
thereby
that
where
the
possession of the acquired land has been
taken, there cannot be a withdrawal of
any
land
from
the
acquisition
proceedings covered by Sections 4 and 6
of the Land Acquisition Act.
Case Law discussed:
2008 (1) AWC 399
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for respondent
no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.
2. It is admitted on record that the
land of the petitioners was acquired under
the provisions of Land Acquisition Act,
1894. It is also admitted on record that the
petitioners have taken compensation for
the land, which had been so acquired.
3. What is missing from the writ
petition is as to on what date the
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were made
and on what date petitioners had actually
received the entire compensation.
4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners refers to the letter of the
Principal
Secretary,
Industrial
Development Department, Government of
U.P. at Lucknow dated 24th April, 2010
enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ
petition for the reliefs prayed for in the
present writ petition i.e. for the acquired
land being leased in his favour.
5. We have gone through the letter
of the Principal Secretary dated 24th
April, 2014 and we find that in the letter it