GHELAJI MATHURJI THAKOR AND ORS. Vs. GSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of the LAS for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) The petitioner/original applicant -claimants, has filed this Revision Application against the order passed by the MACT, (AUX) Ahmedabad, in MACP No. 787 of 1997 rejecting the application below Exh. 35 for making payment for reconstruction of the house. It is the case of the applicant that, the wife of the application No. 1 and mother of applicant Nos. 2 to 4. died in a vehicular accident, for which an amount of Rs. 1,20,800/ - was awarded with 12% interest and cost. Thereupon, after some time. the said amount of compensation was deposited in the Tribunal. As per the modified order of the Tribunal, each of the petitioner would be entitled to 25% share of the amount of compensation and out of the amount coming to the share of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, being 75% of the same should be invested in a nationalised bank for a period of 7 years. The petitioner No. 1. being husband of the deceased, was paid Rs. 10,000/ - whereas, petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 (since minor at relevant time ) who on their attaining majority were also paid Rs. 10,000/ - which in all Rs.30,000/ - has already been paid to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that, his old ancestral house is in a dilapidated condition and is required to be repaired for which, Rs. 1,20,000/ - is expected expenses as per the estimate given by the Zeel Construction, Engineers and Contractors dtd. 28 -9 -2001. The Court Commissioner was also appointed to note down the position of the house who has also given his map and report dt. 11 -1 -2001. The advocate for the appellant produced a xerox copy of the estimate of M/s. Zeel Construction and a report of the court Commissioner, along with two fixed deposit receipts of the Allahabad Bank, Lal Darwaja Branch, 'Ahmedabad, While disallowing the application of the applicant, for withdrawal of Rs. 1,20,000/ -to the present applicants, the Ld. Trial Court has discussed the judgment in case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v/s. Sushma Thomas reported in : AIR 1994 SC 1831 and came to a conclusion that, payment can be made for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable properties such as agriculture equipments, rickshaw, etc., to earn living and not for any other purposes and thereby, rejected the petition.