IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.649 of 2008 1. MANJU SINGH wife of Sri Binay Singh 2. Binay Singh son of late Nand Kishore Singh Both are residents of village Chakbyas, P.O. and P.S. Garaul, District Vaishali..Claimants— Appellants Versus 1.AMIT AGARWAL son of Sri Om Prakash Agarwal,resident of Space Communication Centre, Raghubansh Road, Andi Gola, P.S. Town, P.O. and District Muzaffarpur—O.P.1st /Respondent 1st set 2.The Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Krishna Market, Motijheel P.S. Town, District Muzaffarpur—Opp.party No.2/ Respondent 2nd set-----Respondents ----------- 3. 30.6.2009 Although the matter has come up for admission for the first time under the heading for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC but in view of the nature of the grievance raised by the appellants against the impugned award it can be disposed of at this stage itself since no right of any of the respondents is involved in the present matter. The respondent no.2, the National Insurance Company, has already appeared through its counsel Mr.Ashok Priyadarshi. The only grievance of the appellants is that the Tribunal while awarding the claim of Rs.1,20,000/- with 6% simple interest from the date of filing of the claim petition against the Insurance Company in favour of claimant- appellant no.1 has directed that the amount 2 shall be fixed in any nationalized bank and the claimants shall get monthly interest for her maintenance. It is grievance of the claimant no.1 that she has a daughter who is of marriageable age and therefore the Tribunal ought to have allowed payment of at least 50% of the claim amount in lump sum and the balance ought to have been directed to be fixed in a nationalized bank. Mr.Ashok Priyadarshi learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company draws the attention of the Court to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas(Mrs.) and others (1994) 2 SCC 176, in paragraph 23 of which the following guidelines in the matter of payment of compensation have been laid down by the Apex Court. Paragraph 23 is quoted below : “23. In a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunal do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Corpn. V. Union of India in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to 3 exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. This Court offered the following guidelines: (Guj LR pp. 759-60) “(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be invested in long term fixed 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 moveable 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 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 and 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 4 (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 for 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 monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be: (viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of an 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.” These guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases.” It is evident from the aforesaid guidelines that the impugned award of the 5 Tribunal in the present matter is in accord with the same. While both the appellants had filed the claim for compensation the compensation has been awarded only to the claimant-appellant no.1, the mother of the deceased with the direction for depositing the same in the fixed deposit in the Bank. The amount itself would earn interest which would be barely sufficient to meet the needs of the claimant-appellant no.1 now in her old age. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the money is required for the marriage of the daughter of the appellants, it can only be held that the same is essentially the liability of the claimant-appellant no.2 and it is expected that he being the father would make appropriate provision with respect to the same and thus it would not be appropriate to order a lump sum amount of the compensation to be withdrawn for the said purpose. Moreover, nothing has been brought on the record to show that the marriage has already been settled and the money is required immediately. Hence it would not be appropriate to pass any such 6 order at present for payment of any lump sum amount of compensation, as rightly decided by the Tribunal. From a perusal of the aforesaid decision in Susamma Thomas’ case it is also evident that liberty was to be granted to the claimant before the Tribunal to apply for withdrawal in case of emergency and to meet such contingency, if such 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. On a consideration of the aforesaid decision in the facts of this case this Court is of the view that if the amount has not yet been deposited in one or more fixed deposits the same should be deposited in four fixed deposits so that in case of any emergency if the Tribunal on an application by the claimant-appellant no.1 considers withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses, then only one or more such F.D.R. as per the order may be liquidated. Further, it is made clear that in case of any such emergency/contingency it would be open to 7 the appellant no.1 to apply before the Tribunal for withdrawal of lump sum amount from the said compensation deposited in fixed deposit in the Bank and the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders thereon. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed subject to the aforesaid directions and observations. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/