Case: Smt. Ashalata Das Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others

The amount directed to be invested, which was otherwise also a modest one, was not such as to suggest that the intended benefit was confined to only interest therefrom to be enjoyed by the appellant during her lifetime. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that, in the circumstances of the present case, the investment of the entire sum of Rs. 25, 000 during the lifetime of the appellant and virtually limiting her beneficial interest only to the receipt of the interest of Rs. 200 or thereabouts per month would be unrealistic having regard to the nature and extent of the present needs of the ailing old lady which might require a more generous allowance than a meagre Rs. 200 per month for her food, shelter, raiment and medical relief.7. Learned counsel for the insurer, however, sought to support the impugned direction and submitted that the judgment, read as a whole, left no room for doubt that what was intended to be given to the appellant was the benefit of periodic payments during her lifetime and it was only to facilitate prompt monthly payments, limited and confined to the period of her life, that the investment was directed to be made. Learned counsel said that the provision for the reversion of the fund to the insurer was consistent with, and justifiable on, this scheme of limited relief contemplated by the appellate judgment.On a consideration of the matter, we are afraid that the judgment of the High Court does not bear the construction sought to be placed on it by the insurer as to the nature and extent of the relief intended to be afforded to the appellant. The judgment does not indicate that the benefit intended by it was only in the nature of a monthly payment for and during the appellants lifetime and not a lump sum award. It is not so much a question whether, in a fatal accident action, the Tribunal or the High Court, as the case may be, has and has not the power to award an annuity or other periodic payments in preference to a lump sum and once for all payment. as it is one whether, in this particular case, the High Court had actually done so. The first part of the judgment which we have excerpted earlier clearly indicated the stand of the insurer that it did not press its challenge to the lump sum award of Rs. 16, 000 together with interest thereon. The award confirmed by the High Court was a lump sum award.8. However, the High Court found it necessary to protect the interests of the appellant by ensuring the safety of the corpus of the fund by proper investment and providing for monthly payments of the interest accruing on the investment. These directions issued for the protection of the appellant did not have the effect of altering the nature and substance of the award into one of mere monthly payments of Rs. 200 limited to the appellants lifetime. The further direction in the judgment that the corpus should revert to the insurer after the lifetime of the appellant does not square with the first part of the judgment which clearly affirmed a lump sum award of Rs. 16, 000 and interest thereon in favour of the appellant. We, accordingly, hold that the direction for reversion of the corpus of the fund to the insurer upon the appellants death requires to be deleted. It is, accordingly, set aside. We hold that the High Court has granted a lump sum of Rs. 16, 000 with interest, which, as at the date of judgment, aggregated to Rs. 25, 000.What remains to be considered is whether the directions as to the investment make adequate provision for the needs and requirements of the appellant. It is stated that the appellant is over 70 years of age now. The direction that the entire sum of Rs. 25, 000 be permanently invested and that only the interest accruing thereon each month be recoverable by the appellant may not, in the circumstance of the case, be a reasonable one. In these days of steep inflation, the amount of Rs. 200 may not amount to much in the matter of providing even a frugal living for the appellant, who has apparently no other source of sustenance. The appellant is in the late evening of her life and there is no reason why the allowance should not be a little more generous. 9. In the circumstances, it appears to us that out of the sum of Rs. 25, 000, a sum of Rs. 4, 000 together with the entire undistributed accrued interest, if any, be paid to her immediately. The remaining sum of Rs. 21, 000 be invested in any nationalised bank in the name of the appellant in six fixed deposits of Rs. 3, 500 each, the period of the investment ranging from 1 year to 6 years, the first deposit being for a period of one year ; the second for two years and so on. The appellant shall be entitled to receive the interest accruing on all the six deposits every month. She shall be entitled to the proceeds of the deposit upon their maturity as and when the deposits mature. It shall be ensured that the appellant shall not be entitled to part with or negotiate the deposit receipts or encash them prematurely nor shall she be entitled to raise any loans on their security. The order of the High Court is modified accordingly.10. The Tribunal is directed to implement the directions contained in this judgment for the benefit of the appellant.We, however, make it clear that if the entire sum has already been invested pursuant to the directions of the High Court in any permanent investment and that investment cannot, in the opinion of the Tribunal, be recalled or disturbed, the Tribunal shall make a reference, to this court within a month of the date of the receipt of this order for appropriate further directions.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The judgment does not indicate that the benefit intended by it was only in the nature of a monthly payment for and during the appellants lifetime and not a lump sum award. It is not so much a question whether, in a fatal accident action, the Tribunal or the High Court, as the case may be, has and has not the power to award an annuity or other periodic payments in preference to a lump sum and once for all payment. as it is one whether, in this particular case, the High Court had actually done so. The first part of the judgment which we have excerpted earlier clearly indicated the stand of the insurer that it did not press its challenge to the lump sum award of Rs. 16, 000 together with interest thereon. The award confirmed by the High Court was a lump sum award.8. However, the High Court found it necessary to protect the interests of the appellant by ensuring the safety of the corpus of the fund by proper investment and providing for monthly payments of the interest accruing on the investment. These directions issued for the protection of the appellant did not have the effect of altering the nature and substance of the award into one of mere monthly payments of Rs. 200 limited to the appellants lifetime. The further direction in the judgment that the corpus should revert to the insurer after the lifetime of the appellant does not square with the first part of the judgment which clearly affirmed a lump sum award of Rs. 16, 000 and interest thereon in favour of theis stated that the appellant is over 70 years of age now. The direction that the entire sum of Rs. 25, 000 be permanently invested and that only the interest accruing thereon each month be recoverable by the appellant may not, in the circumstance of the case, be a reasonable one. In these days of steep inflation, the amount of Rs. 200 may not amount to much in the matter of providing even a frugal living for the appellant, who has apparently no other source of sustenance. The appellant is in the late evening of her life and there is no reason why the allowance should not be a little more generous.