Lu' IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS BEFORE THE 20"" DAY or-" SEPTEMBER, 2010 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCH.I,<:';a_'ERxi.'_'V» E WRIT PETITION No.28559/:io1o:A'm;\Q -1' BETWEEN: 1. AND: Sri Ganganna.B @ Byrasetty, .. S/o Byrasetty, Aged about 47 years. Smt. Shankramma, W/0 Gangana B, Aged about 39 years. _ Both are R/o aarietgagteer, Turuvekere Ta"iu_k;..~--':~_V ' Q " Tumkur Dist.rict_. " ' TTTT (ag;v:,sri"i~::R..:" .a'meséh';"Ad4vocate) SrIVenkat'e.sh,. E _ _ Father name notrknown to._"tb.e Petitioners,... ..... .. e .
o.TRamaj’n_n’a,’
R/-.o_ Su.nka’d.-akatte,
Magad”i_Road, Bangalore.
“The United India Insurance
Company Limited,
No’.’108/7, 5″‘ Main Road,
§Bazar Street, Ganganagar,
” Bangalore ~ 560 032.
Represented by its Branch Manager.
Petitioners
Respondents
(By Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy, Advocate for R3 ~– absent)
‘7
This writ petition is fiied under Articies 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated
31.5.2010 passed by the F-‘r|.Civi| Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM and
Addl. MACT, Tumkur in MVC i\io.1027/93 at Annexure~D rejecting
the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 151.oft-CPC
at Annexure–B and C and thereby aliowed the said appiVi.cations’.i.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary “lear.ing it
day, the Court made the following: —
QRDER
The petitioners have called’ into
Accidents Claims Tribunai’s order, 31.5V.”2Gi:Q’V’:refuising to
release a sum of Rs.45,6SO/e._”‘:i1ep–oisit’ed :i_r_i..v,Vl’favour ofthe first
petitioner and Rs.68,464/- in AfaV.:O_iJ.r petitioner for
a period of three Tribunal has
refused to relAea._sellvgtllie~:i..a:rn1o’uvnlts;._ as the application is made
within bareiy si’>l<'=vreelf:'s"'fro'i.1V'gi tlhietvdellpositing of the amount. The
Tribunal is .o'f"ti°.e View no good ground exists for the release
of'th_ev:amo'untvs.i_
2.” Sri’K.vR.l7Rafiivesh, the learned counsei for the petitioners
_$3l_Jbinits th4at..t’hepetitioners are in serious financial difficulties.
2ThVey..fhaVve'”«performed the marriage ceremony of their daughter
the loans. Money is required to meet their
V[}-imrriediate commitments.
i§§ié
3
3. The insistence for the depositing of the compensation
amounts is only for ensuring that the money does not evaporate
itseif. When the claimants faii on rainy days, there s.houici~.,_be
some funds to take care of their requirements.
4. The averments in the affidavit”fiied in xth~ereHo–f
for the reiease of the amounts show that_th.e”petitione.rs«.
agricuiturai cooiies. Considering thei’r~.socio-«econAOini&~«.Vc’ondition,’V’
this Court finds it safe to ho-id” thati-ti1e’Vg_:peVti~tioners’have incurred
the expenditure of Rs.2’O,’O_10O/-.»_Vfito ::’&’iis.,iZ5;.0O0/~ towards
performing their da.u.g:hter’s V”
5. Tiijereforeiy-vVvt_t1iVs.C’o.uArt,.__deems it just to set aside the
impugned orderand’-dVirect,_”‘t’h_e’ifribunai to release a sum of
Rs.10,00C;/–” from the first ‘petitioner’s account and Rs.15,000/~
from”the” second’*«p_etitioner’s deposit. The remaining amounts
shaii”- deposit in their favour for a period of
htiaree years. ‘
6.«i§esvu”Itantiy this petition is aiiowed in part.
Sd/-i
Iudge