Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 92 (CHH)

Pappu Singh v. Indra Kumar Sahu

2015-03-11

GOUTAM BHADURI

body2015
Order Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. This is a petition against the order dated 8/09/2014 Annexure P-1 wherein the application to grant an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the awarded sum to the claimant was refused. The brief facts of the case is that claimant Pappu Singh suffered amputation and by way of compensation in a claim case No. 97/13 on 26 November, 2013 an award of Rs. 7,91,784/- was passed. By such award, the tribunal further directed to deposit Rs. 6 lakhs for a period of 10 years in a Nationalized Bank and it was also directed that claimant shall be entitled to receive amount after maturity after 10 years. During course of time, an application was filed initially to release part of the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was dismissed on 17/07/2014 and subsequently another application was filed to release the amount. In the second round the applicant was examined and it was deposed that due to amputation, he is not able to perform his job and is in financial stringency. It was further stated that he needs amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the deposited amount of Rs. 6 lakhs in order to open a grocery shop so as to run his livelihood. Said application was dismissed at the threshold. 2. I have gone through the documents, statement of the applicant. 3. Admittedly by the award, the direction was passed to deposit Rs. 6 lakhs in term deposit in bank for a period of 10 years but subsequently application has been filed by the claimant to release a part of amount so as to earn his livelihood by opening grocery shop. 4. Having regard to the application and the statement, in my considered opinion, it would be just and expedient to allow amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to be withdrawn from the deposited amount of Rs. 6 lakhs as a part thereof. Remaining amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- shall remain with the bank in term deposit. Refusal of the amount may lead to further starvation taking into physical incapacity of claimant and in opinion of this court it may provide the applicant a chance of livelihood with dignity. Accordingly, revision stands disposed of with the above observation.