This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a request for premature disbursement of fixed deposit funds. The court held that house repair does not qualify as an emergency under Supreme Court guidelines.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17220/2015
(1)
(Smt. Sharda Vs. IFCO General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
O R D E R
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17220/2015
(Smt. Sharda Vs. IFCO General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.)
Date of Order : 01.12.2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. J.P. Gupta, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.06.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar (hereinafter “the Tribunal”) whereby her application for premature disbursement of the amount lying in two FDRs aggregating to Rs.3,00,000/- has been dismissed.
Heard. Perused the impugned order.
The only ground advanced by the petitioner in the application for premature disbursement of FDR amount was that she was living in a house which is not in a good condition and therefore she was in dire need of money for construction/repair of the house.
The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of General
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas [AIR 1994 SC 1631] has held in para 17 as under :
“In a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this court in Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India [(1991)4 SCC 584] in the matter of appropriate
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17220/2015 (Smt. Sharda Vs. IFCO General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.)
(2)
investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Lrd. [1982(1) 23 Guj. LR 756] this court offered the following guidelines:
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17220/2015
(Smt. Sharda Vs. IFCO General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.)
(3)
permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment;
These guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases.”
It cannot be disputed that the purpose of safeguarding the compensation amount paid under an award is to ensure proper investment and prevent the award amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries either for reason of ignorance, illiteracy, exploitation or short sightness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Susamma Thomas (Supra) has kept the door open to the claimants to seek variation of the arrangements made in an award to serve the long terms financial stability of the claimants only in case of emergencies.
To my mind premature encashment of a FDR for construction/repair of a house cannot fall within the meaning of “emergency” as referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Susamma Thomas (Supra) . What the repairs required of a house are and how essential they are has not been stated nor any estimate of such repairs submitted. The reason advanced for premature encashment is thus not to the satisfaction of the Court.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17220/2015 (Smt. Sharda Vs. IFCO General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.)
(4)
The whole purpose of keeping the amount in fixed deposits is to safeguard the future of the claimants to the extent it was possible. Financial discipline is imperative. Construction/repair of a house without necessary particulars cannot be equated with “an emergency” to warrant premature encashment of FDRs.
There is nothing perverse in the impugned order dated 22.06.2015 passed by the Tribunal attracting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petition is without force. Dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J
MS/-82
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the need for house construction or repair constitutes an 'emergency' warranting premature encashment of fixed deposit awards under compensation guidelines.
Whether the Tribunal's refusal to allow premature disbursement of the fixed deposit amount amounts to a perverse order attracting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma ThomasExplained¶17
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas [AIR 1994 SC 1631] · Who else cites this
Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶17
Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India [(1991)4 SCC 584] · Who else cites this
Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Lrd.Referred¶20
Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Lrd. [1982(1) 23 Guj. LR 756]
Smt. Sharda
IFCO General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
