Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3309 (ALL)

SARITA SHARMA v. MOHD. USMAN

2015-10-26

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Ms. Neeharika Sinha Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she may be permitted to delete the petitioner No. 2 from the array of the parties and petition shall be treated to be the petition only on behalf of petitioner No. 1. 2. She is permitted to do so during the course of the day. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Through this writ petition, prayer has been made for issuing writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.8.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 34 of 2015 arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 264 of 2012 (Smt. Sarita and others v. Mohd. Usman and others) by which learned Judge has directed to release an amount of Rs. 11,82,039/- in favour of the petitioner, out of which Rs. 1,00,000/- has been directed to be paid through account payee cheque and remaining Rs. 10,82,039/- in fixed deposit for a period of five years. 5. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has erred in directing to invest an amount of Rs. 10,82,039/- in fixed deposit for a period of five years. In her submission, once this Court has directed to release 50% amount without furnishing security, it ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner instead of directing to release only Rs. 1,00,000/- out of Rs. 11,82,039/-. 6. The facts giving rise to this case are that the husband of the petitioner died in an accident and the petitioner alongwith other claimants have filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 264 of 2012 (Smt. Sarita and others v. Mohd. Usman and others). After exchange of pleadings, Motor Accident Tribunal has passed an award for payment of Rs. 34,50,000/- to the claimants out of which Rs. 20,00,000/- was awarded to the petitioner alongwith 6% interest. The proportion of amount in favour of other claimants is not necessary to be detailed here as the dispute is only with respect to the petitioner. 7. The Insurance Company, upon which liability was fixed to pay the aforesaid amount, has filed F.A.F.O. No. 1053 of 2015 (Shriram General Insurance Co. 20,00,000/- was awarded to the petitioner alongwith 6% interest. The proportion of amount in favour of other claimants is not necessary to be detailed here as the dispute is only with respect to the petitioner. 7. The Insurance Company, upon which liability was fixed to pay the aforesaid amount, has filed F.A.F.O. No. 1053 of 2015 (Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sarita Sharma and others) before this Court, in which following interim order was passed: “Considering the facts and circumstances, until further orders of this Court, effect and operation of the impugned award dated 7.3.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Court, Essential Commodities Act, Ghaziabad in MACP No. 264 of 2012 shall remain stayed, subject to the condition that the appellant deposits entire awarded amount with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. The Registry is directed to return the statutory deposit made before this Court to the Tribunal, which shall be liable to be adjusted towards the deposit to be made by the appellant. The claimant-respondents shall be entitled to withdraw half of the amount, so deposited, without furnishing any security and the remaining amount shall be invested by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Court, Essential Commodities Act, Ghaziabad in some interest bearing account with a nationalized bank. In case of any default, this interim order shall stand automatically vacated. The apportionment of the amount to be paid to the claimants under this order shall be made in the same proportion as directed in the award passed by the Tribunal." 8. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it transpires that the Insurance Company was directed to deposit entire awarded amount alongwith up-to-date interest. Out of awarded amount, 50% was to be released without furnishing any security in favour of the claimants and remaining was to be invested by the Motor Accident Tribunal in some interest bearing fixed term deposit with the nationalized bank. The apportionment of the amount was to be paid to the petitioner in the same proportion as directed in the award. 9. It appears, after deposit of the awarded amount the applicant has filed an application for releasing of half of her share as directed by the Tribunal in her favour. The Tribunal taking note of the observations made by this Court in the last portion of its order dated 29.4.2015 has released only Rs. 9. It appears, after deposit of the awarded amount the applicant has filed an application for releasing of half of her share as directed by the Tribunal in her favour. The Tribunal taking note of the observations made by this Court in the last portion of its order dated 29.4.2015 has released only Rs. 1,00,000/- out of 50% share of the applicant i.e. Rs. 11,82,039/- and remaining amount was directed to be kept in fixed term deposit. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the apportionment was to be made in the same proportion as directed by this Tribunal i.e. 50% of the amount, which according to the Tribunal, was falling in the share of the petitioner i.e. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest. 11. I am of the view that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is near to the truth as once this Court has directed to release 50% of the awarded amount without furnishing any security, there was no scope for the Tribunal to deviate from the same taking shelter of the apportionment given by it with respect to release of the amount and if it is accepted, it would be contrary to the direction of this Court, according to which 50% amount was to be released without furnishing security. Otherwise also the Tribunal could not direct to enhance the limit of fixed deposit more than 50%, which in the case of the petitioner has gone on much higher side, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.4.2015. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order dated 31.8.2015 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent to release 50% amount falling in the share of the petitioner to the petitioner without furnishing any security. 13. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of.