Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 13 (PNJ)

Nathi Singh v. Mannu Khan

2009-01-06

JASWANT SINGH

body2009
Judgment Jaswant Singh, J. 1. Present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 9.2.2008 (Annexure P3) and 8.11.2008 (Annexure P7) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short Tribunal), whereby the claim of the petitioner for releasing the remaining amount of compensation (lying deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipt) granted by the learned Tribunal vide its award dated 5.11.2007, on account of injuries suffered by the petitioner, has been rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on account of 90% permanent disability suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed his application and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,86,000/- only alongwith costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till the final realisation thereof. It is further the case of the petitioner that it was nowhere provided in the award that the compensation was to be partly disbursed and partly put in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in a nationalised bank. However, on the application filed by the petitioner for the release of compensation the learned Tribunal vide order dated 9.2.2008 (Annexure P3) ordered that 75% of the awarded amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner-claimant in some nationalised bank in STDR, fetching a maximum interest for a period of three years and remaining 25% shall be disbursed in cash. It is admitted by the petitioner-claimant that he has received 25% of the compensation amount and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,59,825/- was deposited in the FDR in State Bank of Patiala. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that after the petitioner had suffered 90% disability which resulted in amputation of his right foot, he developed severe infection in his foot and consequently had to remain in hospital for treatment from 13.10.2008 to 17.10.2008 and incurred huge amount on his treatment/operation. Since the petitioner needed money for his treatment and sustenance he moved an application before the learned Tribunal for release of the remaining amount of compensation which was declined vide the impugned orders dated 9.2.2008 (Annexure P3) and 8.11.2008 (Annexure P7). 4. Since the petitioner needed money for his treatment and sustenance he moved an application before the learned Tribunal for release of the remaining amount of compensation which was declined vide the impugned orders dated 9.2.2008 (Annexure P3) and 8.11.2008 (Annexure P7). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner requires remaining amount of compensation awarded to him for his further treatment and therefore, the deposit of the balance amount in FDR for a period of three years would not serve any purpose. In support of the same he relies upon Nazar Mohammad v. Harbans Singh, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 596 : (2006-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 818; Mohinder Singh and others v. Kulbir Singh and others, 2008(3) RCR(Civil) 468 : (2008-3) The Punjab Law Reporter 736; H.S. Ahammed Hussain v. Irfan Ahammed, 2002(3) RCR(Civil) 563 (SC) and General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, (1994-2) 107 PLR 1. 5. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner has suffered serious injuries on his leg which has resulted in 90% disability. It is also clear that the petitioner has remained in hospital for various periods and his right foot has been amputated. It also cannot be disputed that the petitioner is undergoing further treatment for which he requires money. 6. The Honble Supreme Court in H.S. Ahammed Hussains case (supra) has observed that deposit of compensation in Fixed Deposit Schemes is not proper in the case of adults and if invested in Fixed Deposit, it has to be withdrawn prematurely. Further, the Honble Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transports case (supra) has laid down guidelines stating that in case of personal injuries for further treatment the necessary amounts from the FDRs should be permitted to be withdrawn. In Nazar Mohammads and Mohinder Singhs case (supra) in similar circumstances the Courts have directed the release of the remaining amount of compensation which was lying deposited in the FDRs. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and the legal position, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 9.2.2008 (Annexure P3) and 8.11.2008 (Annexure P7) passed by the learned Tribunal are quashed and the remaining amount of compensation lying deposited in the FDRs alongwith interest is directed to be released to be petitioner-claimant.