Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1941 (RAJ)

Ram Kumar v. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

2008-08-18

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Issue notice for final disposal to respondent No. 3 only. Mr. J.L. Purohit normlly appearing for the Oriental Bank of Commerce is directed to accept the notice on behalf of respondent No.3. He accepts notice. Counsel for the petitioner to supply copy of the writ petition to Mr. Purohit. Notice of respondents No.1 and 2 is dispensed with. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided at admission stage. 3. By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 7th February, 2008 Annexure-5 has been challenged by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned. 5. It appears that the petitioner suffered the injury in a road accident alleged to have been caused by the driver of the offending vehicle for which the petitioner has filed a claim petition before the respondent No.1 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar (for short "the Tribunal" hereinafter). By the judgment and award dated 10th May 2005, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner, however, while directing the disbursement of the amount of award, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in a Nationalised Bank for a period of five years and remaining amount was directed to deposit in his saving account. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in Fixed Deposit in compliance of the of direction of the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the Tribunal for disbursement of the amount, which was directed to be deposited in the Fixed Deposit on the ground that marriage of his adopted daughter is scheduled to be solemnized on 22nd February, 2008. Though the application was moved in January, 2008, the same came to be dismissed on 7.2.2008 by order impugned Annexure- 5. 6. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from some of the persons of the village in order to solemnize the marriage of his adopted daughter and, therefore, the petitioner was required to repay the amount which he took from the villagers for marriage of his daughter. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Chatare Lal v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand, RLW 1997(1) Raj. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Chatare Lal v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand, RLW 1997(1) Raj. 169 wherein on similar facts, this Court directed the concerned Bank to ensure the withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/- for the marriage of daughter of the petitioner therein. The decision relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner squarely applies in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The respondent No.1, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar, is directed to release the amount of Fixed Deposit in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioner directing the respondent No.3 to pay the amount to the petitioner forthwith.Writ Petition Allowed. *******