IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CR NO.6 of 2009
Date of Decision:6.1.2009.
Nathi Singh
..........Petitioner.
Versus
Mannu Khan and others.
..........Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.
Present: Mr.Sandeep Jasuja,Advocate for the petitioner.
JASWANT SINGH,J.
Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated
9.2.2008 (Annexure P3) and 8.11.2008 (Annexure P7) passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short Tribunal), whereby the
claim of the petitioner for releasing the remaining amount of compensation
(lying deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipt) granted by the learned Tribunal
vide its award dated 5.11.2007, on account of injuries suffered by the
petitioner, has been rejected.
The case of the petitioner is that on account of 90% permanent
disability suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, the learned Tribunal
had partly allowed his application and awarded compensation of
Rs.2,86,000/- only alongwith costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of institution of the petition till the final realisation thereof. It is further
the case of the petitioner that it was nowhere provided in the award that the
compensation was to be partly disbursed and partly put in a Fixed Deposit
CR NO.6 of 2009 2
Receipt (FDR) in a nationalised bank. However, on the application filed by
the petitioner for the release of compensation the learned Tribunal vide
order dated 9.2.2008 (Annexure P3) ordered that 75% of the awarded
amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner-claimant in some
nationalised bank in STDR, fetching a maximum interest for a period of
three years and remaining 25% shall be disbursed in cash. It is admitted by
the petitioner-claimant that he has received 25% of the compensation
amount and the remaining amount of Rs.1,59,825/- was deposited in the
FDR in State Bank of Patiala.
It is further the case of the petitioner that after the petitioner
had suffered 90% disability which resulted in amputation of his right foot,
he developed severe infection in his foot and consequently had to remain in
hospital for treatment from 13.10.2008 to 17.10.2008 and incurred huge
amount on his treatment/operation. Since the petitioner needed money for
his treatment and sustenance he moved an application before the learned
Tribunal for release of the remaining amount of compensation which was
declined vide the impugned orders dated 9.2.2008 (Annexure P3) and
8.11.2008 (Annexure P7).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
requires remaining amount of compensation awarded to him for his further
treatment and therefore, the deposit of the balance amount in FDR for a
period of three years would not serve any purpose. In support of the same
he relies upon Nazar Mohammad v. Harbans Singh, The Punjab Law
Reporter (2006-2) 818; Mohinder Singh and others v. Kulbir Singh and
others, The Punjab Law Reporter (2008-3) 736; H.S.Ahammed Hussain v.
Irfan Ahammed, 2002(34) RCR (Civil) 563; and General Manager,
CR NO.6 of 2009 3
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum V. Susamma
Thomas (Mrs.) and others, (1994-2) 107 PLR 1.
It cannot be disputed that the petitioner has suffered serious
injuries on his leg which has resulted in 90% disability. It is also clear that
the petitioner has remained in hospital for various periods and his right foot
has been amputated. It also cannot be disputed that the petitioner is
undergoing further treatment for which he requires money.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.S.Ahammed Hussain’s case
(supra) has observed that deposit of compensation in Fixed Deposit
Schemes is not proper in the case of adults and if invested in Fixed Deposit,
it has to be withdrawn prematurely. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport’s case (supra) has laid
down guidelines stating that in case of personal injuries for further
treatment the necessary amounts from the FDRs should be permitted to be
withdrawn. In Nazar Mohammad’s and Mohinder Singh’s case (supra) in
similar circumstances the Courts have directed the release of the remaining
amount of compensation which was lying deposited in the FDRs.
In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and the legal position,
this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 9.2.2008
(Annexure P3) and 8.11.2008 (Annexure P7) passed by the learned Tribunal
are quashed and the remaining amount of compensation lying deposited in
the FDRs alongwith interest is directed to be released to be petitioner-
claimant.
6.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge