Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pridhi Singh & Ors.

1. This order shall dispose of an application filed by respondent Nos.[1] and 5/applicants under Section 151 CPC for release of FDR deposited in their names.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the husband of respondent No.1/applicant, Pridhi Singh and son of respondent No.5, Krishna, died in an accident. The respondents filed an application under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation for themselves and their two minor children, namely, Parista and Master 2015:DHC:5989 Vibodh. The said claim petition was decided by the learned MACT on 12.4.2012 by awarding total compensation of Rs.22,30,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.50,000/- was already received by them way of an interim compensation and the balance amount of Rs.21,80,000/- was to be paid to them and their children. The applicants were also directed to be paid interest @ 7.[5] per cent on the aforesaid amount from 27.7.2010 till the date of realization. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.21,80,000/-, a sum of Rs.[5] lacs each was to be deposited in the name of two minor children in the form of an FDR with State Bank of India, Rohini District Courts, Delhi till the time of the marriage of the daughter and the son attains majority. The applicant/respondent No.1 was permitted to withdraw quarterly interest on both these FDRs through her savings bank account in order to defray the expenses incurred for studies of the minor children. A sum of Rs.[3] lacs was to be deposited in the name of the mother of the deceased applicant/respondent No.5 for a period of five years with liberty to withdraw quarterly interest. A similar amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was directed to be deposited in favour of the applicant/respondent No.1 for a period of five years and the remaining compensation along with interest accrued thereon was to be deposited in the same bank account of applicant No.1 where from she had the liberty of withdrawing an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month for the household expenses. The learned MACT also directed that these FDRs cannot be pledged or any advance or loan be taken against them.

3. The aforesaid award dated 12.4.2012 was assailed both by the applicants and the insurance company by way of two cross appeals bearing Mac. Appeal No.695/2012 and 127/2013. Both these appeals were heard and disposed of by the High Court on 29.9.2014. While the appeal of the insurance company was dismissed, the appeal of the respondent No.1/applicant and other claimants was allowed and the amount of compensation was increased from Rs.21,80,000/- to Rs.22,70,000/- but the modality of payment as envisaged by the learned MACT was not changed and no submission in this regard seems to have been made by the learned counsel for the applicants before the High Court.

4. The applicant/respondent No.1 (Pridhi Singh) has now filed the present application for release of the entire FDR amount in her name and in the name of her mother-in-law, namely, Krishna. The ground for release of the amount is that the children of applicant No.1 are studying in DPS, Indore and they are incurring annual expense of approximately Rs.87,000/- and therefore, she is not able to meet her expenses. So far as applicant No.5 is concerned, it has been stated that the said applicant is to undergo some medical treatment for which she requires money. A photocopy of the discharge slip from Bhagwati Hospital in respect of applicant No.5 has also been handed over in court.

5. Notice was issued to the non-applicants, however, there is no appearance.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. It has been contended that the applicant/respondent No.1 is in great financial difficulty and she needs money for the purpose of payment of fees of the children which is to the tune of Rs.87,000/- per annum for each child. It has also been stated that the applicant has taken loan from her relations and she wants to repay the same. On the basis of these facts, the learned counsel for the applicants has prayed for release of the amount deposited by way of an FDR in her favour and in favour of her mother-in-law. The learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court passed in A.V. Padma and Others vs. R. Venugopal and Others; 2012 (1) T.A.C. 740 (SC).

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and have also gone through the record. I do not find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the applicants that the aforesaid amount deserves to be released to the applicants. The reason for this is that the learned MACT has passed a conscious order of keeping the amount in the fixed deposit as applicant/respondent No.1 is a widow with the liability of maintaining two minor children, who are studying as well as her aged mother-in-law. Keeping in view these peculiar family circumstances of applicant No.1, the court has tried to secure their financial interest by putting an appropriate sum in their names by way of an FDR for a period of five years with the direction that the interest accrued on the same can be withdrawn by her on quarterly basis. In addition to this, out of the amount which has been deposited in her savings bank account, she has been permitted to take a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month for household expenses. These directions passed by the learned MACT seem to be in the interest of the applicant in order to secure her interest from the vagaries of financial constraints which she may face in the event of her being permitted to take the entire amount which may be spent by her. Even when the appeal was preferred by the applicant, she did not make any such submission that she is in great need of finances on account of education of the children which would have been taken care of by the appellate court while deciding the appeal. It only seems to be an afterthought on the part of the applicant/respondent No.1 after the disposal of the appeal by enhancing the amount of compensation to be released to her. Therefore, I do not find that it will be just and proper for this court to tinker with the arrangement which the two courts, the learned MACT as well as this court has visualized and devised for the benefit of the applicant.

8. The judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is a judgment which was passed by the Apex Court where the order of the appellate tribunal was assailed and the parties were educated and the children were also major. A family in the said case did not suffer from the disability or minority of the children or their education on the contrary, the children were major, educated and capable of looking after their financial interest and so was their mother. Therefore, the observations passed by the court in the said judgment of A.V. Padma’s case (supra) cannot be taken to be governing the facts of the present case. So far as the medical certificate, photocopy of which is handed over in court is concerned, it does not show that the mother of the deceased/accident victim is in any urgent need of finance. A perusal of the discharge slip from Bhagwati Hospital shows that she is suffering from old age ailments like diabetes, joint pains for which she needs medication and physiotherapy exercise which will not per se be a ground to show that she is to incur some expenses for her health and therefore, deserves to be given the money upfront.

9. I feel that the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show any cogent reason for release of the money to the widow/applicant on the contrary, I feel that in the event of money being released it will cause more harm to the interest of the applicant than the good.

10. For these reasons, I dismiss the application of the applicants for release of the amount; however, the applicants are free to draw the amount in terms of the orders passed by the learned MACT. V.K. SHALI, J. JULY 28, 2015 ‘AA’