Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors vs Satyawan & Ors on 30 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors vs Satyawan & Ors on 30 August, 2009
      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                               Civil Revision No.3131 of 2008 (O&M)
                                     Date of decision: July 30, 2009.


Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors.
                                                        ...Petitioner(s)

            v.

Satyawan & Ors.

                                                        ...Respondent(s)


CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:    Shri Harsh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners.

            Shri Surinder Dhul, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2.

            Shri J.K. Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

                                 ORDER

Surya Kant, J. – (Oral):

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

10.5.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal whereby

the petitioner’s prayer for payment of the compensation amount of

Rs.1,80,575/- lying deposited in the FDR, has been partly accepted and a

sum of Rs.1 lac has been ordered to be released in her favour.

Sandeep Kumar – husband of petitioner No.1 and father of

petitioners No.2 to 4 died in a road accident. The petitioners filed a claim

petition No.60 of 2005 which was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Kaithal vide award dated 30.10.2007 granting compensation of
Rs.4.18 lacs. Out of that, a sum of Rs.1,50,757/- has been deposited in the

FDR in the name of the petitioner No.1 whereas the balance amount has

been deposited in FDRs in the names of minor children, namely, petitioners

no.2 to 4.

The 1st petitioner moved an application for releasing a sum of

rs.1.80 lacs to enable her to construct the house. As noticed above, the

Tribunal, vide the impugned order, has permitted the release of payment of

Rs.1 lacs out of the said total amount.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into

consideration the plea taken by the petitioner that she wants to construct a

pucca house in the village, this revision petition is disposed of with liberty

to petitioner No.1 to again approach the MACT, Kaithal along with

photographs as well as a report from the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to

the effect that she has already started the construction of the house.

If the application is supported with aforesaid

report/photographs and other convincing material, the Tribunal shall

consider the desirability of releasing the balance amount as well, lying in

the name of petitioner only, in her FDR.

Dasti.



July 30, 2009.                                       [ Surya Kant ]
kadyan                                                     Judge
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *