URMILA DEVI Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, petitioner, claiming herself to be the widow of one Janardan, who expired in an accident, filed claim petition No. 237 of 2008. Said claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs. 3,45,500 was awarded as compensation with interest. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 2,75,000 was directed to be invested in F.D.R. with a nationalised Bank for a period of five years with liberty to the petitioner to encash the interest on yearly basis, and a sum of Rs. 70,500 was directed to be paid to her in cash. The petitioner made an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for premature encashment of the F.D.R., on the ground that her husband had taken some loan, which she wanted to return, and secondly the petitioner wanted to carry out repair work of her residential house. Said application was rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, then writ petition No. 26990 of 2009 was instituted by the petitioner, whereupon this Court had given liberty to the petitioner to make fresh application giving details of repair work to be carried out qua her residential house, and directives were also given to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to examine the claim of the petitioner and take appropriate decision by a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto application was made by the petitioner and said application has been rejected vide order dated 20th August, 2009. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, and thereafter with the consent of the parties, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the facts of the case, amount in question ought to have been directed to be released prematurely in favour of the petitioner, as such the order impugned deserves to be quashed and writ petition allowed.