Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 875 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. National Insurance Company

2005-08-18

S.S.SARON

body2005
ORDER S.S. Saron, J. - In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 16.5.2005 whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (Tribunal for short) has allowed the petitioner to withdraw an amount of Rs. 50,000/- only out of the amount lying deposited in the fixed deposit receipt of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13.1.2003. The learned Tribunal by its award dated 21.10.2004 (Annexure P-1) awarded Rs. 1,15,000/-. It was ordered that the amount of compensation awarded to the above claimant be deposited in his fixed deposit account in some nationalized bank for a period of two years with a stipulation that the bank concerned shall not grant any loan against the security of this deposit and further that the Bank Manager shall make a note of this stipulation on the FDR. It was made clear that the claimant will get monthly/quarterly interest on the amount deposited and would be at liberty to apply to the Tribunal for refund of the amount in case of emergency. It is on account of need that the petitioner filed an application for release of the amount lying in the fixed deposit receipt in pursuance of the award of the Tribunal dated 21.10.2004 (Annexure P-1). The said application having been declined, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initially the entire amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit with the Punjab & Sind Bank, G.T. Road, Karnal for two years. Thereafter, on an application before the learned Tribunal, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in case was ordered to be released in his favour. Now a sum of Rs. 88,349/- remains in the fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner. It is stated that at the time of accident the petitioner had taken loan for his treatment from his relatives which he wants to repay as otherwise the relations would be affected. Besides, the petitioner in the accident had received multiple injuries including fracture of right leg. He was operated twice and permanent disability was assessed in the accident to the extent of 25%. Besides, the petitioner in the accident had received multiple injuries including fracture of right leg. He was operated twice and permanent disability was assessed in the accident to the extent of 25%. He has not been fully cured and is still under treatment on account of those injuries. In the circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner is in dire need of financial help to repay the loan taken from his relatives and also for getting medical treatment. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is appropriate to note that the Honble Supreme Court in H.S. Ahammed Hussain v. Irfan Ahammed, 2002(3) PLR 297, has observed that the amounts of compensation awarded in favour of adults should not be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and in case the amounts had not already been invested, the same shall be paid to them but if, however, invested by depositing in a nationalized bank, there may be its premature withdrawal in case the parties so intend. Therefore, it is to be seen in the fact and circumstances of each case whether an adult claimant who has been awarded compensation in respect of a claim under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be given payment immediately or the awarded amount in whole or in part should be retained in a fixed deposit for future payment. 5. In the case in hand, the petitioner is an adult and he is stated to be in dire need of the amount to repay his debt and also for medical treatment. It is stated that the petitioner was operated twice and permanent disability has been assessed to the extent of 25%. The petitioner has also not been fully cured and is still under treatment on account of the injuries suffered. 6. Keeping in view the need of the petitioner and the observations of the Honble Supreme Court, it would be just and expedient to order the release of the amount laying in the FDR in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is an adult and he requires the money for his treatment and to repay his debt and, therefore, it would be improper to retain the amount further. 7. The petitioner is an adult and he requires the money for his treatment and to repay his debt and, therefore, it would be improper to retain the amount further. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 16.5.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of releasing an amount of Rs. 50,000/- only in the FDR, the entire amount lying in the fixed deposit receipt with the Punjab & Sind Bank, G.T. Road, Karnal in favour of the petitioner is ordered to be released in his favour. Petition allowed.