Durga Devi Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sh.R.P. Bhasin) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with laworderm.l. koul, j.1. there is no inter se dispute between the parties regarding which this revision petition has been preferred by smt. durga devi petitioner, who in nut shell has contended that the motor accident claims tribunal passed an award in favour of her father-in-law, herself and her three minor children in the amount of rs. 2,68,800/- and the apportionment was ordered to be made as per the award, whereby a sum of rs. 10,000/- was ordered to be paid to ghisa ram father-in-law of the petitioner and the remaining amount of rs. 2,58,800/- along with entire interest was ordered to be equally apportioned between claimant nos. 1 to 4 i.e. the present petitioner and her three minor children namely inderjit, ajay kumar and pooja. the amount of the shares of the minors on realisation was ordered to be deposited in some nationalised bank by way of fixed deposits fetching highest rate of interest and they were entitled to receive the same on their attaining majority with the permission of the court. the bank authorities was further directed that it shall not advance any loan etc. against the amount of fdrs of the minors.2. on execution of the award, the tribunal allowed the father-in-law of the petitioner to draw his amount of rs. 10,000/- and the position with regard to the minors remained the same. an amount of rs. 20,000/- was ordered to be paid to the petitioner out of her share and the rest of the compensation amount was ordered to be deposited in the state bank of india for a period of three years by way of fixed deposit in her name in some highest interest bearing scheme and she was entitled to quarterly interest on the said amount.3. this order appears to be palpably wrong. as the petitioner is a major, it was her choice either to deposit the money in the bank or receive it in hand. the court's domain without the consent of the petitioner in ordering her part of share of the compensation to be deposited in the bank is illegal and no duty is cast upon the tribunal to direct the people to deposit the money in a particular bank. many a times it has been observed that the tribunals while awarding compensation to the claimants direct the amount to be deposited in the banks even in cases of major claimants. this practice adopted by the courts should be done away for it creates problems for the claimants who have to run to this court for relief.4. the petitioner in her sworn affidavit has stated that an appeal preferred by the insurance company has been dismissed but there is an appeal preferred by the claimants with regard to the enhancement of compensation which stands admitted. the admission of the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall not in any manner affect the disposal of this revision petition. hence the revision petition is disposed of in limine with a direction to the executing court that it shall pay the entire amount to the petitioner which is due to her as per the award at once, in case there is no stay from any court of law.revision petition disposed of.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.L. Koul, J.

1. There is no inter se dispute between the parties regarding which this revision petition has been preferred by Smt. Durga Devi petitioner, who in nut shell has contended that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed an award in favour of her father-in-law, herself and her three minor children in the amount of Rs. 2,68,800/- and the apportionment was ordered to be made as per the award, whereby a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was ordered to be paid to Ghisa Ram father-in-law of the petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,58,800/- along with entire interest was ordered to be equally apportioned between claimant Nos. 1 to 4 i.e. the present petitioner and her three minor children namely Inderjit, Ajay Kumar and Pooja. The amount of the shares of the minors on realisation was ordered to be deposited in some Nationalised Bank by way of fixed deposits fetching highest rate of interest and they were entitled to receive the same on their attaining majority with the permission of the Court. The Bank authorities was further directed that it shall not advance any loan etc. against the amount of FDRs of the minors.

2. On execution of the award, the Tribunal allowed the father-in-law of the petitioner to draw his amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the position with regard to the minors remained the same. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- was ordered to be paid to the petitioner out of her share and the rest of the compensation amount was ordered to be deposited in the State Bank of India for a period of three years by way of fixed deposit in her name in some highest interest bearing scheme and she was entitled to quarterly interest on the said amount.

3. This order appears to be palpably wrong. As the petitioner is a major, it was her choice either to deposit the money in the bank or receive it in hand. The Court's domain without the consent of the petitioner in ordering her part of share of the compensation to be deposited in the Bank is illegal and no duty is cast upon the Tribunal to direct the people to deposit the money in a particular Bank. Many a times it has been observed that the Tribunals while awarding compensation to the claimants direct the amount to be deposited in the Banks even in cases of major claimants. This practice adopted by the Courts should be done away for it creates problems for the claimants who have to run to this Court for relief.

4. The petitioner in her sworn affidavit has stated that an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company has been dismissed but there is an appeal preferred by the claimants with regard to the enhancement of compensation which stands admitted. The admission of the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall not in any manner affect the disposal of this revision petition. Hence the revision petition is disposed of in limine with a direction to the executing Court that it shall pay the entire amount to the petitioner which is due to her as per the award at once, in case there is no stay from any Court of law.

Revision petition disposed of.