JUDGMENT
K. Thankappan, J.
The petitioner is an injured in a motor accident which occurred on 15.2.1999. On account of the serious injuries sustained by the petitioner, he was treated in the hospital for more than 75 days as an inpatient. The petitioner spent Rs. 65,000/- for his treatment. On the basis of the settlement arrived at by the petitioner and the Insurance Company on 19.3.2002, the Tribunal passed an award for an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The Insurance Company issued a cheque for Rs. 1,40,000/- on 8.5.2002 in favour of the Tribunal. The Tribunal deposited the amount in the name of the petitioner on 9.10.2002 for a period of two years, but the petitioner was allowed to withdraw only an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he filed an application to withdraw the balance amount for continuing his treatment and for the purpose of his daughter’s marriage, the Tribunal neither numbered the application nor allowed him to withdraw any amount. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Tribunal to release the amount deposited in his name.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the accident occurred on 15.2.1999 and the Insurance Company deposited the award amount on 9.10.2002. The petitioner was allowed to withdraw only an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. He is an educated man. The petitioner actually spent more than Rs. 65,000/- for his treatment and he is continuing the treatment. He also needs money for his daughter’s marriage.
3. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-Insurance Company it is stated as follows:-
“3. As per Ext.P1, an amount of Rs. 1,14,228/- is deposited for a period of 24 months from 9.10.2002 with interest at the rate of 7.25% per annum.
4. The petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 15.2.99. The claim so settled on 13.12.2000 for Rs. 1,40,000/-. This respondent has deposited the entire amount before the Tribunal by letter dated 8.5.2002. It is stated that the petitioner requires the amount for the marriage of his daughter.”
4. It is a fact that the petitioner is an educated man and that he is in need of money. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in K.S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas (1994 (1) KLT 67) the Tribunal would not take any favourable decision in the matter. In the above decision the Supreme Court had issued certain guidelines to be followed by the Tribunals while releasing compensation to the claimants in accident cases. The guidelines read thus:-
“(i) The Claims Tribunals should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term deposits 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 rouge (sic-ruse) to withdraw money;
(iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless it 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 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 (i) above, subject to the relaxation 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 do 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 of such treatment.
(vii) In all cases in which investment in long term fixed deposits is made it should be on condition that the Bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested is paid directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be;
(viii) In all cases, the Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of 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.”
The above guidelines were issued in order to safeguard the feed from being flittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. Even considering the safety measures to be followed in deserving cases the Supreme Court has given ample discretion to the Tribunals to allow to withdraw the amount of compensation considering the need and other circumstances mentioned in the applications for withdrawal. All these aspects were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram and Anr. (2003 (1) KLJ 654). In the above decision this Court stated as follows:-
“… In the case of literate persons it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. The expression used in guideline No. (iv) is that “in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above”, whereas in guidelines Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that in “”the Tribunal should”. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the 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 necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. 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, unfortunately the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are often taking a very rigidstand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposits. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi-literate and literate persons.”
5. In the above decision this Court also considered the official memorandum No. D1(B) – 41320/99 dated 26.7.1999 issued by this Court with regard to release of compensation by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and noted that “even in cases where there is no possibility or chance of the ‘feed being flittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation’, the investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a mater of routine, totally ignoring the spirit of the directions given by the Supreme 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 even 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 interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him. In effect and practice the exception has been made general. The Tribunals are disposing of the applications of the claimants for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind to the spirit and content of the guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to be inhibited by a wrong impression that in view of the guidelines given by the Honourable Supreme Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be directed to 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 in the attitude and approach of the Tribunals is highly necessary in the interest of justice.
6. In the above circumstances, it would be more advantageous to mention some more aspects. Prior to the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules there was limitation for filing an application for compensation. The Tribunals pass award after completing the legal formalities, which may take months or even years. Hence, between the period of accident and the release of compensation, the victims or the claimants have to depend upon either their relatives or friends or they have to avail loans to meet the necessity. Further, the award amount is released to the injured or the claimants in chronological order. After the introduction of the ‘adalat’ system in the State, immediate release of the amount as settled between the parties is ordered. On the other hand, the amounts deposited by the Tribunals are released only after the expiry of the period of deposit. This fact also cannot be ignored by this Court. Reduction of interest rate is another relevant factor.
7. Considering all these aspects, with regard to the deposit and release of compensation awarded in accident cases, this Court feels that the following directions shall be issued:
1) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, while ordering or not ordering (a) deposit of whole or part of compensation; (b) release of whole or part of compensation to the claimants; (c) withdrawal of whole or part of the compensation before the expiry of the normal period of deposit already ordered; and (d) withdrawal of compensation allowed to minors, widows and old parents of deceased, shall consider and pass appropriate orders with reasons, in the light of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas’s case (supra);
2) With regard to the applications for release of deposits, the Tribunals shall dispose of the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of such applications;
3) The Tribunals shall not allow time beyond the statutory period allowed to deposit the compensation;
4) The Tribunals, while ordering deposit of compensation, shall see that the entire expenses met by the claimants from the date of the accident till the date of award are discharged from the amount so ordered to be released;
5) The Tribunals shall also see that the immediate future expenses to be incurred by the claimants or legal heirs are included in the amount to be released or withdrawn.
In the light of the above conclusions, the Original Petition is allowed. The 2nd
respondent shall consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders within 15 days from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
8. Registry is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to all the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals of the State and also to the Finance Secretary, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum.