1 2025:CGHC:19545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 379 of 2025  Smt. Maya Devi W/o Ranjeet Singh Aged About 44 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 2 Years), R/o Village- Govindpur, P.S. Kiratpur, Tahsil Nazibabad (Wrongly Mentioned As Nazibabad), District- Bijnour (U.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sanjay Kumar Vaishnav S/o Dilip Vaishnav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Saudha, House No. 2, Tehsil Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Vishnu Chandravanshi S/o Shri Baburam R/o. Mohgaon High School Para, Tehsil - Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. Rajneet Singh S/o Mavasu Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Saudha, House No. 2, Tehsil Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited Regional Office Delfi C Wing, Second Floor, 201-204, Hira Nandani Business Park, M.O. Mumbai 400076 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30-04-2025 1) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (C.G.) in MJC No. 15/2025 dated 27.03.2025 whereby application moved by the petitioner for premature withdrawal of fixed deposit amount of Rs. 6,62,477/- has 2 been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case are that on account of death of the son of petitioner in road accident, a claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal claiming therein compensation. The learned Tribunal in Claim- Case No. 30/2023 passed Award on 12.04.2024 whereby petitioner herein was granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,62,477/- and Rs. 1 lakh was granted to other claimants. As per the terms of award, the said amount was deposited with UCO Bank for period of three years. Petitioner, who is the mother of deceased moved an application for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount on account of marriage of her younger son, namely, Akash Kumar which is scheduled to be held of 4th and 5th May, 2025. The learned tribunal rejected the application on the ground that petitioner failed to submit estimates/ bills to establish the expenses which would occur in the course of ceremony. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Tribunal committed error of law while rejecting the application as the petitioner belongs to a vulnerable class being an illiterate, poor villager with no source of income. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.V. Padma & Ors. Versus R. Venugopal & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) SCC 378. 4) Heard. 5) Perusal of the documents annexed along with the petition would show that an application was moved by the petitioner on 12.03.2025 before the learned Tribunal for withdrawal of fixed deposit bearing A/c No. 20980310086193 containing Rs. 6,62,477/- but same was rejected on the ground that petitioner failed to submit any estimate/ bill which would 3 occur in the course of ceremony. 6) In the matter of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Versus Sushamma Thomas reported in 1994 (2) SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has framed certain guidelines in order to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. The said guidelines are extracted herein 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 (1) 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 (1) 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 4 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) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.V. Padma (supra) while dealing with similar issue has held that in guideline (iv) issued in the matter of Susamma Thomas (1994 2 SCC 176) where it is held that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in Guideline (i), whereas in Guidelines (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. It is further held that 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further directed not to take rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows 5 and in the case of semi-literate and literate persons. Relevant paras 7 to 10 are reproduced herein below :- 7. The expression used in Guideline (iv) issued by this Court in Susamma Thomas case is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in Guideline (i), whereas in Guidelines (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 (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. 8. 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 others guidelines were ought to be particularly 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. 9. 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 beneficiary 6 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. 10. 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) From the law down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sushamma Thomas (supra), it is clear that guidelines were issued to keep the award amount invested in long term fixed deposit in case of minors or illiterate claimants or widows. In the present case, the Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand and has mechanically passed the order without understanding and without appreciating the distinction drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court between minors, widows and illiterate persons on one side and semi-literate and literate persons on the other side. In the case at hand, petitioner lost her son and award 7 was passed on 12.04.2024. Petitioner has the responsibility of other children too. It is specifically stated in the application moved by the petitioner that she has to perform the marriage of her younger son, therefore, she moved application for premature withdrawal of fixed deposit amount so her son could get married. The proof of this fact was also placed on record but the learned Tribunal failed to understand the urgency in the matter and mechanically passed the order impugned. 9) Taking into consideration the fact that (i) petitioner is aged about 42 years and she has the responsibility to marry off her son and (ii) appropriate evidence was produced before the Tribunal, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 27.03.2025 is hereby set-aside and the application moved by the petitioner is partly allowed. 10) Learned tribunal is directed to release Rs. 4 Lakhs from the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 6,62,477/-. 11) Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya