AMAD JUMA SAI (FAKIR) Vs. ANIRUDDHSINH BHARATSINH SARVAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Hiren Modi learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondents no. 1 and 2 since they are not necessary parties to the present petition. Permission is granted. Respondents no. 1 and 2 stand deleted from this proceedings.

(2.) RULE. Since this petition is filed against the order dated 18th April, 2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Auxi.] Fast Track Court no. 4, Bhuj at Kutch, whereby the petitioner's request for withdrawal of amount of compensation which is deposited in the Fixed Deposit with the Dena Bank at Mundra, Kutch, and the compensation has been awarded to the petitioner in pursuance of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent insurance company, there is no need to serve the rule to the insurance company and in its absence, the petition can be decided. It is also informed to this Court by Mr. Modi that there is no appeal pending against the award in the claim petition.

(3.) The petitioner had sustained serious injuries in a vehicular accident which occurred in the year, 2005. These injuries rendered him completely bed-ridden. He, therefore, preferred claim petition which was settled in the Lok Adalat and on the basis of the settlement, the Tribunal made award granting compensation of Rs.2,40,000=00 without any interest and costs since the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat. The Tribunal, directed 50% of the amount to be invested in the fixed deposit for a period of five years and as per the Tribunal's order, Rs.1,18,000=00 were invested in the fixed deposit with Dena Bank. Since the petitioner needed this amount for his treatment, he was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000=00 by order dated 18th November, 2006 and the balance amount of Rs.68,000=00 was reinvested in the fixed deposit. In the month of March, 2007, the petitioner again applied for withdrawal of the amount on the ground that in the opinion of the concerned Doctor, for some further treatment, and investigation, the petitioner was likely to have considerable improvement. In view of the same, he made an application for withdrawal of the balance amount. That has been rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 18th April, 2007. Against the same, this petition.