Judgment related to Disbursement and Apportionment of award amount under MV Act:

Judgment related to Disbursement and Apportionment of award amount under MV Act:

 

1.Order of investment by the Tribunal after passing the award Tribunal cannot mechanically pass the order of investment in cases other than minors, illiterate and widows.

2012 (1) GLH 442 A.V. Padma.

2. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhal Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1982 (1) 23 GLR 756, Supreme 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 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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however be allowed to be withdrawn;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 (1) 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 rouge to withdraw money;

(iii) In the case of semiliterate 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;

(iii)              (iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (1) 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;

(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 one 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.

AIR 1994 SC 1631Mrs. Susamma Thomas.

Also see Jaiprakash 2010 (2) GLR 1716

3. Apportionment of inter se liability in an order passed u/s 140 of the Act whether tribunal was justified in apportioning the liability between the joint tortfeasor? Held ; No. 2013 ACJ 959.

4. Apportionment of inter se liability in an order passed u/s 140 of the Act whether tribunal was justified in apportioning the liability between the joint tortfeasor? Held ; No.

2013 ACJ 959.

5.U/s 168compensation apportionment widow, father and mother apportionment made in the ratio of 2:1:1deceased was aged about 33 years Tribunal awarded multiplier of 14 contention that father and mother (aged above 65 years) would entitled for multiplier of 7 only in that view of the matter, apportionment is held to be valid and proper.

2012 ACJ 1093 (Ker)

6. Apportionment of inter se liability whether tribunal was justified in apportioning the liability between the joint tort feasor? Held ; No.

2015 ACJ 1441 (SC) – khenyei v/s NIA Com.(FB).

See also 2013 CJ 926 & 976.