Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 653 (MP)

Rajneesh Rai v. Rajendra Yadav

2007-06-27

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2007
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Briefly stated the petitioner filed a Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balaghat (Claims Tribunal for short) seeking compensation for the injuries caused to him on 14.6.2003 in a motor accident. After service of notice to the owner, driver and the insurer, as agreed by the parties the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat so as to arrive at the amicable settlement. 3. In the Lok Adalat the petitioner's claim was settled for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- vide award dated 24.7.2005 (Annexure P-I). The third respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. deposited the entire amount of compensation in terms of the aforesaid award dated 24.7.2005 passed by the Lok Adalat. On such deposit out of the t9tal deposited amount the Claims Tribunal, Balaghat disbursed Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner and deposited the balance amount in the Bank in the fixed deposit for a period of six years. 4. Thereafter an application for withdrawal of the entire amount was submitted by the petitioner on the ground that while passing the award no condition of depositing the amount in the fixed deposit has been imposed by the Lok Adalat. The said application was rejected by the Claims Tribunal vide order dated 15.10.2005, however, it directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw interest on the fixed deposit. The Claims Tribunal further observed that the petitioner cannot be allowed to withdraw the entire amount in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendram v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others [AIR 1994SC 1631]. 5. Thereafter again the petitioner moved application seeking order from the Claim Tribunal to disburse at least the part of the amount. The said application was considered and out of deposited amount he was allowed to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- vide order dated 4.4.2006. 6. Feeling aggrieved by refusal of the Claims Tribunal to allow him to withdraw the entire amount the petitioner has filed this petition. 7. The said application was considered and out of deposited amount he was allowed to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- vide order dated 4.4.2006. 6. Feeling aggrieved by refusal of the Claims Tribunal to allow him to withdraw the entire amount the petitioner has filed this petition. 7. The petitioner contends that since in the award there was no condition to deposit the amount in the fixed deposit account of the Bank, coupled with the facts that he is literate person, there is no other chimant and the compensation has been awarded to his personal injuries, in the circumstances the Claims Tribunal ought not to have ordered keeping the award amount in fixed deposit and ought to have disbursed the entire amount to him. He contends that the refusal to disburse the entire amount is against the spirit of the 'Lok Adalat movement' and also against the award passed by the Lok Adalat in which there was no condition to deposit the amount in the Bank in fixed deposit. He submits that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendram v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others (supra) has not been applied correctly by the Claims Tribunal. 8. On a perusal of the award passed by the Lok Adalat, I find no condition in the award to keep the amount in Bank in fixed deposit, on the other hand the printed condition about the same has been scored. It is also not the case that the petitioner is an illiterate person. In the circumstances, if the amount is not disbursed as per the award and kept in fixed deposit, it would be contrary to the terms of the award and would also be against the spirit of the Lok Adalat movement. In the absence of any condition to keep the amount in the fixed deposit in the award passed by the Lok Adalat while executing the award the Claims Tribunal cannot put such condition as it would be beyond its scope and jurisdiction. See Tulsiram v. Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior [ 1994 (2) MPWN 84 ], Smt. Devki Mehta v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Almora and another [1996 (III) DMP 96] and Amarsingh v. Rajesh [ 1999 (2) MPLJ 482 ]. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. See Tulsiram v. Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior [ 1994 (2) MPWN 84 ], Smt. Devki Mehta v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Almora and another [1996 (III) DMP 96] and Amarsingh v. Rajesh [ 1999 (2) MPLJ 482 ]. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The Claims Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire balance amount of the award to the petitioner.