E. Krishna Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

E. Krishna vs Union of India (Uoi)

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Nov 25, 2003

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/443639

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/443639
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Motilal B. Naik, J.
Decided On: Nov 25, 2003
Case Number: CRP No. 3571 of 2003
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - compensation - petition filed against decision of railway Tribunal - Tribunal not allowed petitioner to withdraw Rs. 75,000 from fixed deposit (FD) created with compensation - compensation granted by railway on death of petitioner's father in untoward accident - Tribunal held that amount kept in FD for survi...

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

E. Krishna

Advocate B. Parameshwara Rao, Adv.

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi)

Advocate B.H.R. Chowdary, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: I(2004)ACC792; 2004ACJ847; 2004(1)ALD594; 2004(4)ALT56

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........is to be spent and utilized is the discretion of such parties, but courts have no role to say that such amounts shall not be spent for certain purposes. further courts shall not require the parties to produce documentary evidence to its satisfaction. in general manager, kerala state road transport corporation, trivendrum v. susamma thomas, : air 1994 sc1631 , the supreme court prescribed certain guidelines to be followed by the tribunals in compensation cases to safeguard the interests of the beneficiaries and to enable them to enjoy the fruits. the supreme court further clarified that when an application is filed for withdrawal of amounts from fixed deposits to meet certain contingencies, the courts have to examine the same and pass appropriate orders. that does not mean courts can reject every request made by the claimants for withdrawal on untenable grounds directing the claimants to approach higher courts for a direction, which would cost them heavily. this tendency not only harms the interests of the claimants but also insulates frustration in the minds of claimants.5. in the present case, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition filed seeking permission to withdraw an amount of rs. 75,000/- petitioner stated that he got married and living separately from the joint family and as such he requires the amount to purchase motor cycle, household articles etc. in my considered view, the tribunal could not have dismissed the application in toto which defeats very purpose of granting compensation. the view taken by the tribunal is not aimed at helping the beneficiary and is not in tune with the guidelines prescribed by the supreme court. the claimant in this case is a major and desires to settle down in life. the compensation granted by the tribunal is not for mere survival, but is also intended to help the claimant to settle down in life reasonably. the claimant need not be left at the mercy of the tribunal, but as a matter of right entitled to.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Motilal B. Naik, J.

1. The order, dated 11.3.2003 made in LA. No. 534 of 2002 in O.A.A. No. 28 of 2000 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad is assailed in this revision petition on various grounds.

2. The petitioner herein along with his mother and two sisters filed O.A.A. No. 28 of 2000 before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of his father late Sri Yellaiah in an untoward incident of fall from train and the above application was allowed by the Tribunal by order, dated 27.3.2002 awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-in all. The claimants including the petitioner were awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-each and the said amount was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit initially for a period of three years renewable from time to time. However the petitioner and other legal heirs were permitted to withdraw the interest accrues thereon every month. While so, the petitioner herein filed LA. No. 534 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking permission to withdraw an amount of Rs. 75,000/- from and out of the amount lying in fixed deposit towards his share for purchase of motor cycle and utensils etc. The mother of the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, also filed an application in LA. No. 533 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking permission to withdraw an amount of Rs. 45,000/- from and out of the amount lying in fixed deposit in her name for celebrating cradle ceremony of her granddaughter. The Tribunal by common order, dated 11.3.2003 dismissed both the applications observing that the object of keeping the amounts in fixed deposit is for the survival of the petitioners by obtaining monthly interest as they have no other means and that if the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amounts as sought for, their livelihood would be affected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased, filed the present revision petition.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the order impugned.

4. In cases of granting compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the well-settled principles enunciated by the Supreme Court to safeguard the feed from being flittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. If the legal heirs of the deceased are minors, the amounts could be kept in fixed deposit till they attain majority. So far as majors are concerned, to safeguard their interests, it would be open to the Tribunals to permit the beneficiaries to withdraw the amounts awarded to them at once or keep the amounts in fixed deposit for certain period and later permit them to withdraw such amounts to meet certain contingencies on applications to be filed explaining the circumstances for withdrawal of such amounts. It is needless to mention here, when compensation is awarded to claimants, how such compensation is to be spent and utilized is the discretion of such parties, but Courts have no role to say that such amounts shall not be spent for certain purposes. Further Courts shall not require the parties to produce documentary evidence to its satisfaction. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendrum v. Susamma Thomas, : AIR 1994 SC1631 , the Supreme Court prescribed certain guidelines to be followed by the Tribunals in compensation cases to safeguard the interests of the beneficiaries and to enable them to enjoy the fruits. The Supreme Court further clarified that when an application is filed for withdrawal of amounts from fixed deposits to meet certain contingencies, the Courts have to examine the same and pass appropriate orders. That does not mean Courts can reject every request made by the claimants for withdrawal on untenable grounds directing the claimants to approach Higher Courts for a direction, which would cost them heavily. This tendency not only harms the interests of the claimants but also insulates frustration in the minds of claimants.

5. In the present case, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition filed seeking permission to withdraw an amount of Rs. 75,000/- petitioner stated that he got married and living separately from the joint family and as such he requires the amount to purchase motor cycle, household articles etc. In my considered view, the Tribunal could not have dismissed the application in toto which defeats very purpose of granting compensation. The view taken by the Tribunal is not aimed at helping the beneficiary and is not in tune with the guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court. The claimant in this case is a major and desires to settle down in life. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is not for mere survival, but is also intended to help the claimant to settle down in life reasonably. The claimant need not be left at the mercy of the Tribunal, but as a matter of right entitled to utilize the compensation according to the needs. The claimant is the best judge and it is for him/ her to decide how best the compensation is to be utilized. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Though the petitioner had filed application seeking permission to withdraw an amount of Rs. 75,000/- for purchase of motor cycle, house-hold articles etc., considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the requirements of the petitioner, I am of the view, permitting the petitioner to withdraw an amount of Rs. 50,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

6. The revision petition is accordingly allowed in part permitting the petitioner to withdraw an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the fixed deposit-lying towards his share. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties E. Krishna vs Union of India (Uoi) Same Subject Civil Same Judge Motilal B. Naik, J.

Civil