PITAMBER Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) The petitioner, being the claimant, moved an application for withdrawal of the amount, which application was rejected on the ground that the owner of the vehicle had not provided security to the satisfaction of the Tribunal and, consequently, the amount cannot be released, since the interest of the insurance company was required to be protected. The Tribunal, while rejecting the application, relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and others, 2004 AIR(SC) 1630 and Smt. Sheela Devi and others Vs. Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Gorakhpur, 2008 2 TAC 104). The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Nanjappan's case held: