Civil Revision No. 369 of 2009 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 369 of 2009
Date of decision: 22.01.2009
Ayyub and another ...Petiitioners
Versus
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwa1, Advocate, for the petitioners.
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
The petitioners are parents of deceased Naem who died in the
impugned accident and, on that account, a compensation for Rs.2,30,000/-
was awarded by the Tribunal in their favour. The Tribunal further ordered
that 25% of the amount of the awarded compensation shall be payable in
cash; while the remaining amount shall be deposited in fixed deposit for a
period of three years.
The petitioners applied for the disbursement of the deposited
75% amount as well on a plea that they require money to pay the debt
they had raised earlier at the time of solemnisation of marriage of their
daughter in June, 2008.
Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, declined
the plea by observing that they have not adduced any proof regarding the
obtaining of loan at the time of marriage of the daughter in June, 2008.
Civil Revision No. 369 of 2009 -2-
****
The application in the context appeared to the MACT “to be a clever device
to misutilise the entire compensation amount.”
The parties are parents of the deceased and they are
obviously majors. The solemnisation of marriage of a daughter is pious
duty cast on the parents of a child. In this case, the petitioner lost their
male child in the impugned accident. The money, is by all means, theirs. I
see no reason to decline their request. This view is, even otherwise,
supported by a judgment rendered by this court in Ashraf Vs. Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon and others 2007(3) PLR 692. In
that case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-
“The Tribunal has no such jurisdiction in a case where the
claimant is major. This condition incorporated by the Tribunal
is unwarranted and uncalled for in the eyes of law. The
Tribunal while rejecting the application of the petitioner for
modification of the award recorded no reason. The claimant
whois major has every right to utilize the amount in anyt
manner, he likes.
In view of the above circumstances, the order impugned is set
aside and application of petitioner for release of award amount
kept in F.D.R. Is allowed. Bank shall release the amount if
approached.”
The petition shall stand allowed in limine accordingly.
January 22, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge