Case: A.V.Padma  Vs. R.Venugopal

3. One T.S. Subrahmanyam met with a motor accident on 12.11.1991 and died on 21.7.1993 due to injuries sustained in the accident. Appellant No. 1 is the widow and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of the said T.S. Subrahmanyam. In the claim petition filed by the appellants who are the legal heirs of T.S. Subrahmanyam, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Mysore (for short,) passed an award granting Rs.60,000/- as compensation. In appeal, the High Court of Karnataka vide its order dated 6.7.2006 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.4,25,000/-. Respondent No. 3 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. deposited in the Tribunal an amount of Rs.6,33,038/- on 7.1.2008. On 31.1.2008, the appellants filed an application before the Tribunal praying for release of the amount in deposit in favour of appellant No. 1, A.V. Padma. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 filed affidavits stating that they had no objection to the payment of the amount to their mother A.V. Padma. However, the Tribunal directed to invest Rs.1,00,000/- each in long term deposits in favour of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and to disburse only the balance amount to the appellants. The appellants filed a further application dated 19.6.2008 praying to disburse the entire amount to the decree-holders without insisting on deposit of any portion of the amount in any nationalized bank. However, by an order dated 28.6.2008, the Tribunal rejected the prayer for release of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited in the nationalized bank. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 10405 of 2008 in the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court dismissed the writ petition observing that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order keeping in mind the law declared by the Supreme Court in General Manger, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Others, AIR 1994 SC 1631 .According to the High Court, the Tribunal only followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in letter and spirit. Challenging the order of the High Court this appeal has been filed.

Court's reasoning:
6. In this case, the victim of the accident died on 21.7.1993. The award was passed by the Tribunal on 15.2.2002. The amount of compensation was enhanced by the High Court on 6.7.2006. 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 Company deposited the compensation amount in the Tribunal on 7.1.2008. In the application filed by the appellants on 19.6.2008 seeking withdrawal of the amount without insisting on investment of any portion of the amount in long term deposit, it was specifically stated that the first appellant is an educated lady who retired as a Superintendent of the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore. It was also stated that the second appellant Poornachandrika is a M.Sc. degree holder and the third appellant Shalini was holding Master Degree both in Commerce and in Philosophy. It was stated that they were well versed in managing their lives and finances. The first appellant was already aged 71 years and her health was not very good. She required money for 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. The second daughter was stated to be residing in a rented house paying exorbitant rent which she could not afford in view of the spiralling costs. It was further stated in the application that the first appellant was obliged to provide a shelter to the first daughter Poornachandrika. It was pointed out that if the money was locked up in a nationalised bank, only the bank would be benefited by the deposit as they give a paltry interest which could not be equated to the costs of materials which were ever increasing. It was further stated that the delay in payment of compensation amount exposed the appellants to serious prejudice and economic ruin. Along with the application, the second and third appellants had filed separate affidavits supporting the prayer in the application and stating that they had no objection to the amount being paid to the first appellant.