Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 81 (CHH)

Parasmal Soni v. Joga Singh

2002-09-11

FAKHRUDDIN

body2002
ORDER Fakhruddin, J. 1. Heard. 2. This revision is against the order dated 10-9-2001 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur whereby the application filed by the present applicant for disbursing the amount of award so deposited has been rejected. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that in the intervening night of ll/12th January, 1999 a Jeep bearing Regn. No. M.P. 25/8687 owned by the applicant met with an accident when a truck bearing Regn. No. MH-04/9875 which was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 who is the truck owner-cum-driver dashed the Jeep from the opposite side. In this accident, two persons have died and injuries have been caused to certain number of persons. The Jeep was also badly damaged. The legal heirs of the deceased as well as different injured persons have filed different claim petitions for compensation. The owner of the Jeep has also filed application claiming to the tune of Rs. 1,47,234/- for repairing the said vehicle. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence held that the driver of the truck/non-applicant was negligent and the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving, as such by common judgment dated 31-7-2000 it has awarded Rs. 92,034/- to the present applicant towards damages of the said Jeep. Pursuant to the said judgment, respondent No. 2/ Insurer has deposited an amount of Rs. 90,000/- under the award and thereafter the Tribunal has deposited the said amount in the name of the present applicant in form of fixed deposit for a period of ten years in a Nationalized Bank. The present applicant has filed application for release of the amount under the award stating that the applicant had spent a huge amount towards repairs of the Jeep which was badly damaged in the said accident and he became indebted, therefore, he is in need of money to repay his debts. The learned Tribunal by impugned order dated 10-9-2001 had rejected the said application. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs. 92,034/- has been awarded towards the damages and repairs of the said Jeep and the Tribunal has acted mechanically in directing to deposit the amount under award in form of fixed deposit for a long period of 10 years, it defeats the very purpose of the provisions contained in Motor Vehicles Act. 92,034/- has been awarded towards the damages and repairs of the said Jeep and the Tribunal has acted mechanically in directing to deposit the amount under award in form of fixed deposit for a long period of 10 years, it defeats the very purpose of the provisions contained in Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that when an application was made for release of the amount under the award which he needs to repay his debts borrowed from others for repairing the said damaged Jeep or to purchase a new vehicle, it was the duty of the Tribunal to consider the same in right perspective. The Tribunal has inherent powers, which have to be exercised in view of the provisions of law. 6. Shri Shrikumar Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has fairly submitted that the amount under award has been deposited and he has no objection if the amount is disbursed to the claimant. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances, material available on record and that the amount under award is required for the bona fide needs, in the opinion of this Court the Claims Tribunal was not at all justified in directing the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount expeditiously to the claimant by an account payee Cheque/Demand Draft. 9. With the direction aforesaid, this revision is disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Claims Tribunal through the District & Sessions Judge for compliance. C.C. as per rules.