A.V. PADMA & ORS.versusR. VENUGOPAL & ORS

                    [2012] 1 S.C.R. 437


                    A.V. PADMA & ORS.                            A
                             v.
                  R. VENUGOPAL & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 1095 of 2012)
                    JANUARY 27, 2012.
                                                                 B
       [CYRIAC JOSEPH AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

    MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:

     Compensation - Disbursement of - Case of Susamma            c
Thomas, explained - Held: 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 guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the      0
Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an
application seeking release of the money - The guidelines
cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate
orders after examining each case on its own merits - The
prayer in the application of the appellants for release of the   E
amount invested in long term deposits stands allowed - The
entire amount of compensation shall be withdrawn and paid
to the appellants.

     In a motor accident claim after the wife and two
daughters of the deceased were awarded the                       F
compensation, they filed an application praying to
disburse. the entire amount to the decree-holders without
insisting on deposit of any portion of the amount in any
nationalized bank. The Tribunal rejected the prayer for
release of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited in the          G
nationalized bank. The High Court also dismissed the writ
petition observing that the Tribunal had passed the
impugned order keeping in mind the law declared by the
Supreme Court in the case. of Susamma Thomas.*
                           437                                   H
    438      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A         Allowing the appeal, the Court

        HELD:1.1. In the case of Susamma Thomas*, this
  Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the
  feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due
8 to  ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to explpitation".
  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
C mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount
  of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed
  deposit It needs to be clarified that the guidelines were
  issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the
  claimants, particularly, the minors, illiterates and others
D whose amounts are sought to be. withdrawn on some
  fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be
  understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid
  stand, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines
  issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the
E claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the
  Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the
  amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. This
  has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the
  claimants. Therefore, a change of attitude and approach
F on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest
  of justice. [para 4 and 5] [441-C; 442-C-H; 443-C-D]

        *General Manger, Kera/a State Road Transport
    Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Others,
G AIR 1994 SC 1631, referred to.
     1.2. In the instant case, neither the Tribunal in its
  award nor the High Court in its order enhancing
  compensation had directed to invest the amount of
  compensation in long term fixed deposit. The Insurance
H Company deposited the compensation amount in the
   A.V. PADMA & ORS. v. R. VENUGOPAL & ORS.            439

  Tribunal on 7.1.2008. In the application filed by the A
  appellants seeking withdrawal of the amount without
  insisting on investment of any portion of it in long term
  deposit, it was specifically stated that appellant no.1 was
  an educated lady who retired as a Superintendent of the
  Karnataka Road Transport; that appellant no. 2 was an B
  M.Sc. degree holder and appellant no. 3 was holding
  Master Degree both in Commerce and in Philosophy; that
  they were well versed in managing their lives and
  finances. Appellant no. 1 was already aged 71 years and
. her health was not good. She required money for c
  maintenance and also to put up construction on the
  existing house to provide dwelling house for her second
  daughter who was a co-owner along with her, but was
  stated to have been residing in a rented house paying
  exorbitant rent which she could not afford in view of the
                                                               0
  spiralling costs. In the facts and circumstances of the
  case, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the prayer of the .
  appellants. The impugned orders of the Tribunal and the
  High Court are set aside. The prayer in the application of
  the appellants for release of the amount invested in long E
  term deposits stands allowed. The entire amount of
  compensation shall be withdrawn and paid to the
   appellants without any. further delay. [para 6 and 8] [443-
  E-H; 444-A, F-H]

                      Case Law Reference:                     F
     AIR 1994 SC 1631          referred to        para 3
     CIVIL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 1095 of 2012.
     From the Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2008 of the High G
 Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 10405 of
 2008.
     Kiran Suri for the Appellants.
      Debasis Misra for the Respondents.                      H
    440      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          CYRIAC JOSEPH, J. 1. Leave granted.
         2. The appellants were the petitioners in Writ Petition No.
    10405/2008 which was dismissed by the High Court of
8   Karnataka as per order dated 5.8.2008 which is impugned in
    this appeal. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein were respondent
    Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the writ petition.
          3. One T.S. Subrahmanyam met with a motor accident on
     12.11.1991 and died on 21.7.1993 due to injuries sustained
C   in the accident. Appellant No. 1 is the widow and appellant
    Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of the said T.S. Subrahmanyam.
    In the claim petition filed by the appellants who are the legal
    heirs of T.S. Subrahmanyam, the Motor Accidents Claims
    Tribunal-I, Mysore (for short, "the Tribunal") passed an award
D   granting Rs.60,000/- as compensation. In appeal, the High
    Court of Karnataka vide its order dated 6. 7.2006 enhanced the
    amount 01' compensation to Rs.4.25,000/-. Respondent No. 3
    - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. deposited in the Tribunal an
    amount of Rs.6,33,038/- on 7.1.2008. On 31.1.2008, the
E   appellants filed an application before the Tribunal praying for
    release of the amount in deposit in favour of appellant No. 1,
    AV. Padma. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 filed affidavits stating that
    they had no objection to the payment of the amount to their
    mother AV. Padma. However, the Tribunal directed to invest
F   Rs.1,00,000/- each in long term deposits in favour of appellant
    Nos. 2 and 3 and to disburse only the balance amount to the
    appellants. The appellants filed a further application dated
    19.6.2008 praying to disburse the entire amount to the decree-
    holders without insisting on deposit of any portion of the amount
G   in any nationalized bank. However, by an order dated
    28.6.2008, the Tribunal rejected the prayer for release of the
    amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited in the nationalized bank.
    Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants filed Writ
    Petition No. 10405 of2008 in the High Court of Kamataka. The
H   High Court dismissed the writ petition observing that the Tribunal
  A.V. PADMA & ORS. v. R. VENUGOPAL & ORS.                    441
             [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]
had passed the impugned order keeping in mind the law                 A
declared by the Supreme Court in General Manger, Kera/a
State Road Transpott Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma
Thomas and Others, AIR 1994 SC 1631. According to the High
Court, the Tribunal only followed the judgment of the Supreme
Court in letter and spirit. Challenging the order of the High Court   B
this appeal has been filed.
       4. In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court
issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from
being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance,
illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation". Even as per the C
guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit
of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of
minors, illiterate ciaimants and widows. In the case of illiterate
claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for
lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable D
property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn
a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure
that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the
demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-
illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the E
amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the
Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the
whole.or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing
business or for purchasing some property for earning a
livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the F
amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal
will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which
it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is
not mandatory to invest the amount of compensatiqn in long term
fixed deposit. The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued G
by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the
 Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No.
 (i), whereas in the guideline Nos. (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 H
    442      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2012] 1 S.C.R.

A procedure indicated in guideline No. (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
B necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term
  fixed deposit.
           5. 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
C 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
D 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
E others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn 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. The
  guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass
F 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 owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to
  exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long
G 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
H the amount of compensation in jong term fixed deposit without
  A.V. PADMA & ORS. v. R. VENUGOPAL & ORS.                 443
             [CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.]
recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background A
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. The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's B
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 c
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.          o
     6. In this case, the victim of the accident died on
21.7.1993. The award was passed by the Tribunal on
15.2.2002. The amount of compensation was enhanced by the
High Court on 6.7.2006. Neither the Tribunal in its award nor
the High Court in its order enhancing compensation had             E
directed to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed
deposit. The Insurance Company deposited the compensation
amount in the Tribunal on 7.1.2008. In the application filed by
the appellants on 19.6.2008 seeking withdrawal of the amount
without insisting on investment of any portion of the amount in    F
long term deposit, it was specifically stated that the first
appellant is an educated lady who retired as a Superintendent
of the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore. It
was also stated that the second appellant Poornachandrika is
a M.Sc. degree holder and the third appellant Shalini was          G
holding Master Degree both in Commerce and in Philosophy.
It was stated that they were well versed in managing their lives
and finances. The first appellant was already aged 71 years
and her health was not very good. She required money for
maintenance and also to put up construction on the existing        H
    444       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A house to provide dwelling house for her second daughter who
  was a co-owner along with her. The second daughter was
  stated to be residing in a rented house paying exorbitant rent
  which she could not afford in view of the spiralling costs. It was
  further stated in the application that the first appellant was
B obliged to provide a shelter to the first daughter
  Poornachandrika. It was pointed out that if the money was
  locked up in a nationalised bank, only the bank would be
  benefited by the deposit as they give a paltry interest which
  could not be equated to the costs of materials which were ever
c increasing. It was further stated that the delay in payment of
  compensation amount exposed the appellants to serious
  prejudice and economic ruin. Along with the application, the
  second and third appellants had filed separate affidavits
  supporting the prayer in the application and stating that they
o had no objection to the amount being paid to the first appellant.
          7. While rejecting the application of the appellants, the
  Tribunal did not consider any of the above-mentioned aspects
  mentioned in the application. Unfortunately, the High Court lost
  sight of the said aspects and failed to properly consider
E whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was
  any need for keeping the compensation amount in long term
  fixed deposit.
       8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
F case and in view of the uncontroverted averments in the
  application of the appellants referred to above, we are of the
  view that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the prayer of the
  appellants. Hence the impugned orders of the Tribunal and the
  High Court are set aside. The prayer in the application of the
G appellants for release of the amount invested in long term
  deposits stands allowed. The entire amount of compensation
  shall be withdrawn and paid to the appellants without any further
  delay. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There will be
  no order as to costs.
H R.P.                                            Appeal allowed.