http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: LILABEN UDESING GOHEL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.& OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/03/1996

BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) SINGH N.P. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1605            1996 SCC  (3) 608  JT 1996 (4)   352        1996 SCALE  (3)56

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                           W I T H                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4468 OF 1996          (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14022 of 1993) Shyamala Shashidharan Nayyar & Ors. V. Hemraj Loduram Rajpur & Anr.                           W I T H                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4469 OF 1996          (Arising our of SLP (C) No. 14096 of 1993) Pramilaben Narendra Bhai Patel & Ors. V. Nandubhai Ambalal Thakkar & Ors.                           W I T H                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4470 OF 1996          (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14784 of 1993) Ramabhai Shankarbhai Chavda V. Ganibhai Ambabhai Vora & Anr.                           W I T H                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4471 OF 1996          (Arising our of SLP (C) No. 14785 of 1993) Lilaben & Others V. Kaji Gulam Nabi Sheikh & Others                           W I T H              CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4472-73 OF 1996        (Arising out of SLP (C) NOs. 14160-61 of 1993) Kantaben Anil Kumar Patel & Ors. V. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation & Others                           W I T H                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4474 OF 1996          (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15273 of 1993) Shardaben Chandubhai Patel & Ors.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

V. Bachusha Dadusha & Ors.                       J U D G M E N T Ahmadi, CJI      Special leave granted.      The principal  judgment that has been impugned in the 8 matters grouped  together is  the one dated 26.4.1993 in the case of  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben Sultansinh Hakumsinh Jadav  & Others  in first. appeal No.61 of 1979 of the High Court of Gujarat 1993 (1) Gujarat Law Reporter 779. The full  Bench, in that case, was called upon to decide the following questions referred by the Division Bench:      "(i) What  would be  the extent  of      liability  of   the  insurer  under      Section   95(2)   [of   the   Motor      Vehicles Act,  1939] in  respect of      death  or   bodily  injury  to  the      passengers  carried   for  hire  or      reward in a truck?      (ii) Which  clause amongst (a), (b)      or (c) will apply?      (iii) Whether  the judgment  of the      Division Bench  in Oriental  Fire &      General  Insurance   Co.  Ltd.   v.      Husseinbhai  Abdulbhai   Sheikh   &      Ors., First  Appeal No.851 of 1977,      decided  on   26th  July  1983,  is      correctly decided  and is correctly      followed in some other cases? " The full  Bench reframed the questions and at the end of the adjudication on  these points  the Court posed to itself the following question:      "Whether compensation amount should be paid in lump sum      or by periodical instalments." The High  Court took  note of the contention that where lost earnings are still to be anticipated, or where the action is brought by  dependents of  someone killed  in an accident, a large part  of the  award is for future loss of earning, and it is  hard to see how it is appropriate to compensate these by a  lump sum  payment.  A  lump  sum  could  be  invested, according to  this contention,  to provide an income or used to purchase  an annuity.  Another  important  factor  to  be considered  was   that  the   recipient  of   the  lump  sum compensation could be quite inexperienced in the handling of large sums  of money,  and they  may dissipate the money, or fall a  prey  to  confidence  tricksters  or  invest  it  in reckless and hopeless enterprises. The judgment then goes on refer to  the Supreme  Court decision  in the case of Bishan Devi v. Sirbaksh Singh AIR 1979 SC 1862 and quotes paragraph 21 of that judgment, which is as under:      "The insurance  companies  are  now      nationalized and  the necessity for      awarding lump sum payment to secure      the interest  of the  dependants is      no longer  there.  Regular  monthly      payments could  be made through one      of the  nationalized banks  nearest      to the  place of  residence of  the      dependants.  Payment   of   monthly      instalments and  avoidance of  lump      sum    payment     would     reduce      substantially  the  burden  on  the      insurer  and  consequently  of  the      insured. Ordinarily  in arriving at      the lump  sum  payable,  the  Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

    takes the  figure at about 12 years      payment.  Thus,   in  the  case  of      monthly  compensation   of   Rs.250      payable, the  lump sum  arrived  at      would be between 30,000 and 35,000.      Regular monthly  payment of  Rs.250      can be  made from  the interest  of      the lump  sum alone and the payment      will be  restricted  only  for  the      period of dependency of the several      dependants. In  most  cases  it  is      seen that a lump sum payment is not      to the  advantage of the dependants      as large  Part of  it is  frittered      away  during   litigation  and  by-      Payment to persons assisting in the      litigation. It may also be provided      that  if  the  dependants  are  not      satisfied    with    the    minimum      compensation payable  they will  be      at liberty to pursue their remedies      before the  Motor Accidents  Claims      Tribunal.                     (Emphasis supplied)"      The High  Court then  proceeds  to  refer  to  its  own judgment in  the case of Muljibhai v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  (1982) 23  (1) Guj L R 756, and places reliance on the following part of that judgment:      "We are  distressed  to  note  that      Claims  Tribunals  do  not  realise      that it  is not sufficient to award      compensation to  the victim  of the      accident     or      his      legal      representatives, as  the  case  may      be, but  it is  also  its  duty  to      ensure that  the amount  awarded is      not  frittered  away.  It  must  be      remembered    that     lump     sum      compensation   is   paid   to   the      claimants  who   are   either   the      victims of  the accident  or  their      legal representatives  by  applying      an appropriate  multiplier  with  a      view to  providing for his or their      future. In  other words, instead of      spreading   out   the   amount   of      compensation over a number of years      having  regard   to  the  estimated      future life  span, as  a measure of      convenience, lump  sum  payment  is      ordered.   If    the    whole    or      substantial     part     of     the      compensation  money   is  paid   to      claimants who  have  never  handled      such huge  amounts in  their  lives      there  is   the  danger   of  their      frittering away the amount for want      of  fiscal   discipline  in   their      lives. If  the amount is squandered      away, which  in all probability may      happen, the socioeconomic objective      intended  to  be  achieved  by  the      award  of   compensation  will   be      wholly defeated. We are, therefore,      of the  opinion that  in such cases

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

    it  is  imperative  on  the  Claims      Tribunal to protect such claimants,      no  matter   they  are  adults,  by      directing the  investment  of  lump      sum compensation awarded to them."      The impugned  judgment goes on to say that the court in Muljibhai’s case  (supra)  had  indicated  broad  guidelines which the  Claims Tribunal  should follow while disposing of the claim applications arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to  scotch complaints of misapplication of compensation money and  that as  per those  guidelines  the  compensation money should  be invested  in a nationalized bank as a fixed deposit and  the interest thereon should be paid directly to the claimant  or his guardian, as the case may be. The court observed  that   despite  the   compensation  amount   being deposited in  banks unscrupulous  persons by  various  means could  get   the  money   released  from  the  bank  thereby frustrating the  intention  of  the  Court  to  protect  the interest of  the accident  victim or the heirs of a deceased in case of a fatal accident. The High Court pointed out that it was necessary to see:      (i) that  the major  part of  the  compensation  amount      reaches the victims or their dependents;      (ii) large  part of  the  compensation  amount  is  not      frittered away;      (iii) victims or their dependents are not again left at      the mercy of the Society; and      (iv) the  amount, which  is paid  by  the  nationalized      Insurance  Companies,   serves  its   purpose  and  the      socioeconomic  object   of  the   legislation  is   not      defeated.      In the  concluding paragraph of the judgment, the Court gave the following general directions:      (i) Normally,  the Claims  Tribunal should  direct  the      Insurance Company  to pay  the amount  of  compensation      periodically by  quarterly instalments  by  calculating      interest at  the rate  of 15%  per annum  on the  total      amount of  compensation determined by it and to pay the      principal amount  at the  end of  10 to 20 years having      regard to the facts of each case.      (ii) A  further provision  be made  in case  where  the      compensation amount  is large  or in case the claimants      are illiterate  and/or poor to pay the corpus after the      prescribed period  by 2 or 3 instalments depending upon      the circumstances in each case.      (ii) It  would be open to the Insurance Company to make      the necessary arrangement through the General Insurance      Corporation of  India for  making payment of annuity or      periodical instalments  as per  the  direction  of  the      Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.      (iii) If the concerned Insurance Company or the General      Insurance Corporation of India is not ready and willing      to pay  the amount  in the  aforesaid manner, it may be      directed to deposit the amount of compensation with the      Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Life Insurance      Corporation of  India may he directed, on receiving the      said deposit,  to provide for payment by an appropriate      annuity to  the claimants.  Learned advocate  Mr.  B.R.      Shah, after  obtaining instructions  from the concerned      authority  has   stated   that   the   Life   Insurance      Corporation of  India is  having a  large net-work  and      would pay  the  amount  with  interest  by  appropriate      scheme of annuity.      (iv) In the case of MINOR claimants, the Tribunal shall      order that  the amount  of compensation  shall be  kept

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

    with the  Insurance Company  till the minor attains the      age of 21 years but in any case not before expiry of 10      years from the date of the award.      (v) In  personal injury cases if treatment is necessary      the Claims  Tribunal on  being satisfied about the same      may  after  recording  reasons  for  such  satisfaction      direct the  Insurance Company to pay such amount to the      claimant as is necessary for incurring the expenses for      such  treatment.  This  permission  should  be  granted      strictly  after  verifying  the  necessity  of  medical      expenses.      (vi) These  directions would  also apply in the case of      liability arising  under Section 92 of the Act or under      Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. that is to      say, in case of’ no fault liability’.      The High Court added by way of clarification:      "These guidelines  for  keeping  the  amount  with  the      Insurance Companies  or depositing  it  with  the  Life      Insurance Corporation of India are not exhaustive". At the  end of  the judgment  the learned judges directed to circulate the  judgment to  all the Claims Tribunals so that the amount of compensation is disbursed as stated above.      All the  appeals challenge  the judgment  in Kamlaben’s case as  in the  respective cases  of the  appellants orders were passed  by the High Court or some Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on  the basis of the guidelines laid down regarding the mode  of disbursement  of the  compensation awarded. The writ petition  No.716/93 seeking  a writ  of certiorari  for quashing the  judgment is  filed by way of a public interest litigation for the benefit of the victims of the accidents.      Notices were  issued to the Chairman, General Insurance Corporation, in  view of  the statement  having been made on its behalf  before the  full bench of the High Court. Notice was also  issued to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. A stay against  the impugned judgment was declined. However, a limited stay  was granted  by order  dated 1.10.1993  to the effect that  the impugned  order will  not deter  payment to which the  victim/legal heir  of the victim becomes entitled under the statutory provisions of no-fault liability.      Before proceeding  to enumerate  the various grounds on which the  impugned judgment  is  challenged,  it  would  be proper to  have a  look at  the guidelines  laid down in the case of  Muljibhai  (supra).  The  following  part  of  that judgment needs to be quoted for the purpose:      "6. Having  regard to the fact that      day in  and day  out  thousands  of      rupees   are   paid   by   way   of      compensation to  various categories      of claimants,  we think that before      we part,  we  may  indicate  a  few      broad guidelines  which the  Claims      Tribunals    may    follow    while      disposing  of   claim  applications      arising under  the  Motor  Vehicles      Act,  1939,  to  misapplication  of      compensation money:      (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 he allowed to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

    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      rouge 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;      (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   call  cases   Tribunal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    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." <sle> This Court in the case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India  (1991) 4  SCC 584 (686) referred to the guidelines laid down  in Muljibhai’s case in laying down guidelines for disbursement of  compensation to the gas victims of the well known Bhopal  disaster. The  guidelines laid  down in  Union Carbide’s case  were in  spirit quite  similar to those laid down in  Muljibhai’s  case.  The  Court,  however,  did  not include the  clause regarding literate persons’ compensation also to  be given the same treatment in case the court found it necessary to do so to protect the compensation awarded to them.      One can easily notice the major shift in ideas in the impugned  judgment. The  thrust in the impugned judgment is on  the concept  of annuity  so  as  to  ensure  periodic payment of  a fixed amount and to prevent the awarded sum in lump sum  falling into  the hands of the claimant as long as possible. In  order to  ensure the  periodic payment,  which according to  the  judgment  should  be  quarterly  interest calculated at  the rate  of 15%  on the  total  compensation amount, the insurance company itself has been made liable to make the  necessary investment either in its own business or in the business of the General Insurance Corporation or that of the Life Insurance Corporation. The impugned judgment has shown further  caution for  minors who should wait till they are at  least 21  and in any case for 10 years from the date of the  award. It  can be  seen that the periodic payment is insisted  upon  for  all  claimants  irrespective  of  their capacity to  take care  of large sums of money. Further, the arrangement described  above  was  insisted  upon  also  for payment of  the small  amount that is generally available on no-fault liability  primarily to meet the immediate needs of the victims/heirs.      The minimum  waiting period  for 10  years  before  the claimant could be entitled to receive the compensation money awarded  has   been  challenged  as  having  the  effect  of depriving the  claimant of his right to compensation. Such a procedure is  said to be arbitrary andunreasonable and hence violative of  fundamental rights  under Article 14 and right to  property  under  Article  300(A)  of  the  Constitution. Entrusting the  capital amount  to the insurance company has also been  opposed. In  the first  place insurance companies having already  contested the  claim petition tooth and nail are likely  to have lost the confidence of the claimants. In the second  place, the  nationalized status of the insurance company may or may not continue in future when it may become difficult to  assume that the corpus can be safely left with them. The  inflexibility of  the rule, it is said, is likely to cause hardships in individual cases particularly when the claimant would  be needing  the amount  for reimbursement of the medical  expenses as  well as  other expenses incidental thereto, It  is further said that those who are literate and wise should  be given  the charge of the compensation amount at the  very outset  because they may invest the amount in a more profitable way than what is suggested by the court. The payment of  lump sum  is also  favoured by the appellants as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

the amount  may help  the victim/injured  or the heir of the deceased  in   making  arrangement   for  a   self-employing establishment  which   may  be  a  better  arrangement  than receiving a fixed annuity periodically. So far as the minors are  concerned  detaining  the  payment  till  the  claimant reaches the age of 21 years or at least for a minimum period of 10   years  would amount,  in particular cases, to detain the money  till the  claimant reaches  the age  of nearly 30 years. This  again is  challenged as  unreasonable.  Further they say that compensation amount is calculated on the basis of the  multiplier method in which one-third of the expected loss  of   estate  is  deducted  and  therefore  unless  the compensation so  awarded is  paid in  lump sum  the interest alone will  be illusory.  Further,  according  to  them  the amount of  time lost in litigation will never be compensated if the victims are to receive only the interest amount.      The claimants  have further  said that  the  guidelines laid down  in Muljibhai’s  case (supra) having been approved by the  Supreme Court  in the  Union Carbide  case  (supra), there was  no necessity  to lay  down the  directives in the impugned judgment and further that the questions referred to the Full  Bench by  the Division Bench of the High Court did not include  the question  of disbursement  of  the  awarded amount and  hence the determination of the guidelines itself is beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court.      Over and  above the  general challenges to the impugned judgment, each  appellant  has  attempted  to  show  why  in his/her individual  case the  guidelines operate  in a harsh and unjust manner.      Sometime after the arguments in the matters were closed a Division  Bench of the Gujarat High Court took note of the conflict between  the guidelines  laid down  in  Muljibhai’s case (supra) as approved by this Court in Union Carbide case (supra) and referred the question to a five-Judge Bench. The five-Judge Bench  also took  note of the observation of this Court in  the case  of General  Manager, Kerala  State  Road Transport Corporation  v. Susamma  Thomas & Ors. reported in 1994 ACJ 1 = (1994) 2 SCC 176 in which its guidelines in the Union Carbide  case were reiterated. The five-Judge Bench in Jayantilal Ambalal  Parmar v.  Gujarat State  Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (1994) 35 (2) Gujarat Law Reporter 1308), observed that  the reference  was to  resolve the  following questions :      "(1) Is  there conflict between the      guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble      Supreme  Court   in   relation   to      disbursement and  investment of the      amount of  compensation awarded  in      motor accident  claim cases  in the      case  of  General  Manager,  Kerala      State  Road  Transport  Corpn.  Vs.      Susamma Thomas  & Ors., reported in      1994 ACJ  1 (decided  on January 6,      1993) and  the guidelines laid down      by a Full Bench consisting of three      Hon’ble Judges  of this  High Court      in the  case of New India Assurance      Co.  Ltd.   Vs.  Kamlaben  &  Ors.,      reported in 1993 (1) GLR 779?      (2) If  there is  conflict,  is  it      reconcilable? If  not reconcilable,      which guidelines are required to be      followed by  the High Court and the      Motor Accident  Claims Tribunals in      the State?

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

The five  judge  Bench  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the decision of this Court in Union Carbide case (supra) wherein the guidelines  laid down  in Muljibhai’s case were approved had not  been brought to the notice of the three-Judge Bench which  passed   the  impugned   judgment  i.e.  the  one  in Kamlaben’s case. It also noticed that the fact that the same guidelines had  been reiterated  in the  Kerala  State  Road Transport Corporation  case had also not been brought to the notice of the three-Judge Bench. The five-Judge Bench of the High Court  concluded that  there  was  a  conflict  in  the guidelines laid  down by  this Court  and those laid down by the three-Judge Bench. It observed :      "21. In the guidelines laid down by      the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  and the      guidelines laid  down by Full Bench      of this  Court, there  is conflict.      It is  not  possible  to  reconcile      the same.  As  per  the  guidelines      laid down by the Full Bench of this      Court, the  Insurance Company which      may have  become liable  to pay the      amount of  compensation is required      to    retain the amount with it. It      is obliged  to pay  the same to the      claimants     periodically     with      interest at  the rate  of 15%. This      is not  the case  in the guidelines      laid down  by the  Hon’ble  Supreme      Court. The  guidelines laid down by      the Hon’ble  Supreme Court requires      that  the  amount  of  compensation      should   be    deposited   in   the      Tribunal. Thereafter, it is for the      Tribunal to  regulate  disbursement      and  investment   of  the   amount.      Moreover, the  guidelines laid down      by the  Hon’ble Supreme  Court take      care of all types of cases, wherein      even the  insurance company may not      have  been   held  liable  to  make      payment of the compensation; while,      in the  case of the guidelines laid      down by  Full Bench  of this Court,      the guidelines  are silent in cases      where the  Insurance Company is not      made liable  to make payment of the      amount of compensation and only the      owner of  the vehicle or the driver      is   made   liable   to   pay   the      compensation.      22. The  guidelines issued  by  the      Hon’ble Supreme  Court take care of      the provisions of Section 168(3) of      the  Motor   Vehicles  Act,   1988;      while,  as  indicated  hereinabove,      attention of the Full Bench has not      been drawn  to  the  provisions  of      Section 168(3)  of the  Act,  which      requires a  person liable  to  make      payment   of    the    amount    of      compensation to  deposit the amount      of compensation  with the  Tribunal      within thirty days from the date of      announcement of the award.      23. In  the guidelines laid down by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

    the Hon’ble  Supreme Court emphasis      is  to  protect  the  interests  of      minor claimants and the interest of      illiterate  and  semi-literate,  as      well   as   poor   claimants.   The      guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble      Supreme   Court   also   apply   to      literate and  other claimants.  But      in such  cases discretion  is  left      with the  Tribunal, indicating  the      circumstances  and  the  manner  in      which   the   discretion   may   be      exercised. While  in the guidelines      laid down  by the Full Bench, it is      difficult to  read  that  any  such      discretion   is   left   with   the      Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons      there  is   conflict  between   the      guidelines  laid   clown   by   the      Hon’ble Supreme  Court in  the case      of   Union    Carbide   Corporation      (supra) and  again in  the case  of      General Manager,  Kerala State Road      Transport   Corporation    (supra).      Moreover,    this    conflict    is      irreconcilable inasmuch as it would      be impossible to implement both the      guidelines simultaneously."      (See Jayantilal  Ambalal Parmar  v.      Gujarat   State    Road   Transport      Corporation &  Anr. (1994)  35  (2)      Gujarat Law Reporter 1308).      The  five-Judge   Bench  concluded   saying  that   the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as indicated above have to  be  followed  by  all  the  Motor  Accident  Claims Tribunals. Thus,  the position in law as it stood before tho decision rendered by the three-Judge Bench of the High Court stands restored.      It may  also be  mentioned  that  before  us  both  the General  Insurance   Corporation  and   the  Life  Insurance Corporation  expressed  their  inability  to  work  out  and operate the annuity scheme proposed by the three-Judge Bench of the  High Court  and further expressed their inability to grant the  proposed interest  rate as  it may  conflict with Reserve Bank of India directives that may ensue from time to time. They  too, therefore,  expressed  their  inability  to operate  the   scheme.  Counsel   for  the   life  Insurance Corporation clarified that when its counsel gave the consent before the  three-Judge Bench,  it  did  not  visualize  the various operational  difficulties likely  to  arise  in  the implementation of  the scheme  proposed by  the  three-Judge Bench of  the High  Court. Thus,  both the General Insurance Corporation and the life Insurance Corporation feel that the said  scheme   is  unworkable   and  fraught   with  several insurmountable difficulties. We too are of the view that the scheme may  throw up many operational difficulties. However, now that the larger bench of the High Court has restored the original position,  nothing more  is required to be done. If any loopholes appear in the implementation of the guidelines laid down  in Muljibhai’s  case, they  can always be plugged consistently with the guidelines.      Before we part we must observe that even though the guidelines  laid down  in  Muljibhai’s  case  have  been approved and applied by this Court in the aforementioned two cases, many  Motor Accidents  Claims Tribunals and even some

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

of the  High Courts  in other  parts of  the country  do not follow them.  We are  also told  that  in  claims  that  are settled in  or outside the Court or Tribunal, including Lok- Adalats or  Lok Nyayalayas, these guidelines are overlooked. We would  like to make it absolutely clear that in all cases in which  compensation is  awarded for  injury caused  in  a motor accident,  whether by way of adjudication or agreement between the  parties the  Court/Tribunal  must  apply  these guidelines. We  must add one further guideline to the effect that when  the amount  is invested  in a  fixed deposit, the bank should  invariably be  directed to  affix a note on the fixed Deposit  Receipt that  no loan  or advance  should  be granted on  the strength of the said FDR without the express permission of  the Court/Tribunal which ordered the deposit. This will  eliminate the  practise of taking loans which may be upto 80% of the amount invested and thereby defeating the very  purpose   of  the   order.  We   do  hope   that   the Courts/Tribunals in  the country  will not  succumb  to  the temptation of  permitting huge  withdrawals in  the hope  of disposing   of   the   claim.   We   are   sure   that   the Courts/Tribunals will realise their duty towards the victims of the  accident so  that a  large part  of the compensation amount is  not lost to them. The very purpose of laying down the guidelines  was to  ensure the  safety of  the amount so that the  claimants do  not become  victims of  unscrupulous persons and unethical agreements or arrangements. We do hope our anxiety  to protect  the claimants  from exploitation by such   elements    will   be    equally   shared    by   the Courts/Tribunals.      There is  no need  for any  further discussion  in  the matter. The  Writ Petition  (Civil) No.716/93  filed by  the Motor Vahan  Durghatana Sangathan,  Nadiad  and  others  has become infructuous  and is,  therefore, so  disposed of. The appeals arising  out of  special leave petitions are allowed accordingly. Further  orders regarding  disbursement etc. to be obtained  from the  concerned Tribunals/High  Courts.  No costs.