Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 93753 (PNJ)

JYOTI AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA

FAO/5038/2025 · 2025-08-22

Pankaj Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[123] Jyoti and others Union of India Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] [2] and accepts notice on [3] the Tribunal whereby 90% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal has been ordered to be kept in fixed deposits in the name of the claimants eve respect to amount to be kept in fixed deposits has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in the case of FAO No.4331 of 2024 decided on 12.09.2024 wherein this Court observed as under:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5038 Date of Decision : Jyoti and others versus Union of India HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Prikshit Thakur, Advocate for the appellants. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. Ish Karan Singh Chhabra, and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent The appellants are aggrieved of the part of the order passed by the Tribunal whereby 90% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal has been ordered to be kept in fixed deposits in the name of the claimants even though appellants No.1 respect to orders being issued by the Tribunal directing the compensation amount to be kept in fixed deposits has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in the case of Kamaljit Kaur and others FAO No.4331 of 2024 decided on 12.09.2024 wherein this Court observed - "9. Thus, in view of aforesaid decisions, it is evident that the guidelines issued by Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's ibid, were issued to protect the rights of the claimants, who are: a) the minors; b) under some disability; and c) widows and illiterate persons IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 5038-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.08.2025 …Appellants ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ish Karan Singh Chhabra, Advocate, puts in appearance behalf of the respondent-UOI. The appellants are aggrieved of the part of the order passed by the Tribunal whereby 90% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal has been ordered to be kept in fixed deposits in the name of the n though appellants No.1 & 3 are majors. The issue with being issued by the Tribunal directing the compensation amount to be kept in fixed deposits has been elaborately dealt with by this Kamaljit Kaur and others Vs. Union of India bearing FAO No.4331 of 2024 decided on 12.09.2024 wherein this Court observed Thus, in view of aforesaid decisions, it is evident that the guidelines issued by Apex Court in the case of General Manager, ad Transport Corporation's ibid, were issued to protect the rights of the claimants, who are:- b) under some disability; and c) widows and illiterate persons , puts in appearance The appellants are aggrieved of the part of the order passed by the Tribunal whereby 90% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal has been ordered to be kept in fixed deposits in the name of the 3 are majors. The issue with being issued by the Tribunal directing the compensation amount to be kept in fixed deposits has been elaborately dealt with by this bearing FAO No.4331 of 2024 decided on 12.09.2024 wherein this Court observed Thus, in view of aforesaid decisions, it is evident that the guidelines issued by Apex Court in the case of General Manager, ad Transport Corporation's ibid, were issued to RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.26 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5038-2025 (O&M) -2- i.e. those who apprehend threat at the hands of unscrupulous elements and lack fiscal discipline. 10. The guidelines are not to be interpreted like statute but need to be followed in a more pragmatic manner. The Tribunals are right in ordering investment of compensation in Fixed Deposits in the case where a claimant is prone to being robbed off the compensation awarded. Thus, the broad parameters that can be laid down are that the Tribunals should order Fixed Deposits only in those cases where:- (a) the claimant is a minor. From awarded compensation the share of the minor should be ordered to be invested in Fixed Deposits till he/she attains the age of majority or till the parents/guardians show pressing need to spend the amount for the benefit of minor; (b) where the claimant is a physically disabled person owing to some disability arising out of birth, injury or extremely old age and the Tribunal is satisfied that the claimant will not be able to protect his/her money from unscrupulous elements; and (c) where future treatment of the claimant needs to be taken care of by spending amount of compensation. The list is merely illustrative and not exhaustive. In cases where claimants are major and there is no apprehension that they may fall prey to unscrupulous elements or touts/unethical arrangements etc., the amount need not be invested in Fixed Deposits. 11. In view of aforesaid parameters laid down by this Court, the appeals are allowed. However, in appeals bearing FAO Nos.4331 & 4333 of 2024, wherein the claimant(s) are minors and in view of the fact that their interest needs to be taken care of, the compensation amount of the minors is ordered to be kept in fixed deposits till he/she attains the age of majority or till the parents/guardians exhibit pressing need to take care of the expenses for the betterment of the minors. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.26 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5038-2025 (O&M) -3- [4] The present appeal is thus disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Impugned order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, is modified to the extent that the amount awarded to the claimants apart from that awarded to the minor i.e. appellant No.2 is ordered to be released. Amount awarded in favour of the minor/appellant namely Laksh Tailor shall remain invested in the Fixed Deposit till he attains the age of majority. [5] Accordingly, present appeal qua appellant Nos.1 & 3 is disposed off and qua appellant No.2 is dismissed. [6] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 22.08.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.26 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document