NAVEEN RAJ V. Vs. REGISTRAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SRI DEVARAJAN N. AND THE MANAGER HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent No. 1 He is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 20.07.2013 passed on Interlocutory Application in M.V.C. No. 6502/2011. The order is impugned at Annexure -D to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent to release the fixed deposit amount in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner herein who had suffered injuries in an accident had preferred a claim petition in M.V.C. No. 6502/2011. The amount awarded has already been deposited before the tribunal. In respect of the total amount of Rs. 1,55,497/ - the tribunal had released 50% of the amount in favour of the claimant. The balance of Rs. 77,449/ - was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit for a period of five years. The said amount has accordingly been deposited in the Karnataka Bank Limited. The petitioner has presently filed the application seeking release of the said amount also. While seeking release, the claimant has indicated that the said amount is required for his further treatment and also for his educational expenses. The tribunal on taking note of the fact that 50% of the amount has been released very recently has rejected the request made by the petitioner.

(3.) HAVING perused the said judgment, it is no doubt true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to that aspect and in the facts therein taking note of the nature of the claim made for release and the status of the parties had directed that the amount be released. If the said decision is kept in view, though in the instant case, certainly the tribunal was not justified in directing the balance to be kept in deposit for such a long period of five years, keeping in view the fact that 50% of the award amount has been released very recently and the deposit of the balance 50% was made only on 29.04.2013, the conclusion of the tribunal not to release the entire amount at this juncture is justified. However, since I have indicated that the period of five years as directed by the Court below is too long, the Court below is directed to consider release of the amount after lapse of one year and six months from the date of deposit, namely from 29.04.2013. Hence, though I see no reason to set aside the order passed by the Court below, a direction is issued to the Court below to consider the request of the petitioner for release of the amount at the end of one year six months to be calculated from 2.9.04.2013. On the lapse of the said period, appropriate direction shall be issued by the Tribunal to release the said amount in favour of the petitioner. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.