Nagar, Jaipur. vs Rajendra Singh Son Of Bhanwar Singh, Resident Of Girvar

Smt. Shanti Devi Wife Of Late Ghasi, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Village Tholai, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur At Present Resident Of C-17, Saini Colony, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus

1. Rajendra Singh Son Of Bhanwar Singh, Resident Of Girvar Colony, Nag Talai, Delhi Bypass Road, Thana Galtagate, Jaipur (Driver And Owner Loading Tempo No. Rj-14-Ga-1160)

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office At Paanch Batti, M.i. Road, Jaipur Its Branch Manager (Insurance Company Loading Tempo No. Rj-14-Ga- 1160)

3. Mangal Ram Gurjar Son Of Mewaram Gurjar, Resident Of Village Laxmipura, Tehsil Sadwar, District Ajmer (Driver Truck No. Rj- 01-Gb-6588))

4. Basram Yadav Son Of Nanda Yadav, Resident Of Village Mandiyani, Via Srinagar, Post Dhal, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Owner Truck No. Rj-01-Gb-6588)

5. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Branch Office At Anand Vhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur Through Its [2025:RJ-JP:35132] (2 of 4) [CW-14035/2024] Branch Manager (Insurance Company Truck No. Rj -01-Gb- 6588) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 01/09/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners has approached this Court for a pre-mature release of FDR amount. It is submitted that the claim of approximately 66 lacs has been awarded, out of which, the petitioner, who is widow of the deceased, has been awarded a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- at that time. It is further submitted that the petitioner out of the aforesaid amount requested merely Rs. 5,00,000/- qua renovation of the house. Moreover, the petitioner is survived with one major (in terms of age) and one minor (in terms of age) children. Further, the petitioner has relied upon the judgments titled as A.V. Padma and ors. Vs. R. Venugopal and Ors.: 2012 ACJ 271, General Manager, Kerela State Transportation Corporation, Trivandram Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors.: 1994 (2) SCC 176 and Jilsad alias Dilsad Vs. Shaukat and Ors.: 2018 (4) WLN 161 and has submitted that the same are to be read while giving a beneficial interpretation in the favor of the claimant. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the material available on record, this Court at this juncture deems it apposite to act in consonance with the guidelines spelled out in the ratio of General Manager, Kerela [2025:RJ-JP:35132] (3 of 4) [CW-14035/2024] State Transportation Corporation, Trivandram (Supra), the relevant extract of which is reproduced herein below: poration and Ors . v. Union of India “17.In a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Cor and Ors.: AIR1992SC248 in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 1982 1 Guj. LR 756 this Court offered the following guidelines: (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 movable 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 (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; [2025:RJ-JP:35132] (4 of 4) [CW-14035/2024] (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 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.

18. In the result this appeal succeeds in part and the compensation is determined at Rs. 2,25,000/-. The judgment of the High Court is modified accordingly. No costs.” Considering the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments as that FD should be retained in the bank for the benefit of minor/widow or as per facts of the case, it is opined that the matter at hand is a case where a pre-mature release of Rs.5,00,000/- as asked for, moreover, it appears to be genuine plea as the same is asked for renovation of the house; that the petitioner is a widow, illiterate who is also having custody of children. In light of the above, the present petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 24.07.2024 is set aside. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Parties are directed to carry out the requisites. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/s-205