C.R. No. 375 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 375 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: January 15, 2009
Misroof
.. Petitioner
v.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon
and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R. N. Singal, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the revision petition is to the order dated 27.8.2007,
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, `the Tribunal),
whereby an application filed by the petitioner-application for issuing payment
voucher to the extent it directed deposit of 75% of the compensation in a fixed
deposit, has been rejected.
A perusal of the award shows that the petitioner filed the claim
petition for compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road
accident. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation.
After deposit of the awarded amount, the Tribunal directed 75% of the amount to
be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of three years. The petitioner filed an
application for release of the amount of the FDR. The Tribunal has rejected this
application.
The petitioner mentioned in the application that he had to discharge
the debts which he had borrowed at the time of accident from his relatives for
treatment like medicines, hospitalisation and transportation. I fail to understand
how the Tribunal while awarding the compensation for the injuries to the
petitioner directed to deposit of amount in fixed deposit. The Tribunal has no such
jurisdiction in a case where the claimant is major. The condition incorporated by
the Tribunal is uncalled for. The petitioner, who is major, has every right to utilize
the amount in any manner, he likes in cases where the amount awarded is on
account of injuries suffered.
C.R. No. 375 of 2008 [2]
In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside
and the application of the petitioner for release of amount kept in FDR is allowed.
The bank is directed to release the amount of the petitioner on premature
encashment of the FDR, if approached.
The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
15.1.2009
mk