LexA.V. PADMA & ORS. versus R. VENUGOPAL & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 437 A.V. PADMA & ORS. v. R. VENUGOPAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1095 of 2012) JANUARY 27, 2012. [CYRIAC JOSEPH AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: A B 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for release of the E amount invested in long term deposits stands allowed - The entire amount of compensation shall be withdrawn and paid to the appellants.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 cos
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.