UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PITAMBAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the respondent No. 3 Smt. Rukmani Devi, wife of Lok Nath Sharma, for releasing 50% of the amount of the compensation deposited in the F.D.R. No. 346692 of Syndicate Bank. Zila Parishad, Mathura. This Court while passing the interim order dated 27.1.2004 had directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount of compensation before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and claimants-respondents were made entitled to withdraw 50% of the total amount without furnishing security and the balance 50% of the amount only on furnishing security (other than cash or bank guarantee). It was further provided that in case balance amount is not withdrawn by the claimants-respondents on furnishing security within four months of the said deposit, the Tribunal shall invest the said amount in a Nationalized Bank in a Fixed Deposit Scheme.

(2.) For ready reference the order dated 27.1.2004 passed by this Court quoted herein below:

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has stated in his affidavit filed in support of the aforementioned application that no amount as compensation was withdrawn by the claimants-respondents, therefore, the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal deposited the 50% of the total amount, which was directed to be released in favour of the claimants-respondents without security in a Fixed Deposit being F.D.R. No. 346692 of Syndicate Bank, Zila Parishad, Mathura and balance 50% amount which was directed to be released in favour of the claimants-respondents with security is also lying in the account of District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura and till date the claimants-respondents have only received some interest on the said F.D.R., which is about 15,000. It has been stated that claimant-respondent No. 3 being an illiterate lady could not know about the order passed by this Court, as such, the amount of compensation as directed by this Court has not been withdrawn by her. It has been further stated that the claimant-respondent No. 3 moved an application before the lower Tribunal for releasing 50% of the amount without security as directed by this Court, however, the said application was rejected by the lower Tribunal on the ground that the entire original record of the case has already been transmitted to the High Court, as such no order can be passed for want of original record of the case.