The Claims Tribunal while considering an application for withdrawal of the awarded amount is required to duly apply its mind to the factors as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Padma v. R. Venugopal, MANU/SC/0065/2012 : (2012) 3 SCC 378 : [2012 (2) ALL MR 65 (S.C.)], wherein it has inter alia been held that the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, MANU/SC/0389/1994 : (1994) 2 SCC 176 : [2012 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 71] cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. The court clarified that such guidelines were issued only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amount are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money. In the present case, the Claims Tribunal has mechanically rejected the application made by the petitioner, without applying its mind to the facts of the case. From the reasons given by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the Tribunal has not rejected the application on the ground that the reason for withdrawal is not genuine. Under the circumstances, once having found the reason to be genuine, there was no reason for the Tribunal to thereafter reject the application made by the petitioner. As noted hereinabove, the Tribunal has rejected the application by observing that the petitioner can collect the amount needed for the operation from relatives. In the opinion of this court, the approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be countenanced for a moment. The claimant cannot be expected to go and plead for funds from relatives, despite the fact that it is possible for her to meet with the necessary expenses from the compensation awarded to her. Insofar as the loss that would be occasioned on account of premature withdrawal of the amount invested in fixed deposit is concerned, it is the petitioner who would have to suffer such loss and if on account of the circumstances that have arisen, the petitioner is required to withdraw the amount, her request cannot be denied on this ground. Besides, the petitioner is an adult aged 55 years and in a position to understand where her welfare lies. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Special Civil Application No. 2402 of 2015
Decided On: 13.03.2015
Gurubachankour Garnalsinh Gil Vs. Yunusbhai Abubakar Aarav and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Harsha Devani, J.
Citation: 2016(3) ALLMR(JOURNAL)82
