JANABAI GOVIND SURVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19th March, 1987 passed by the respondent No. 2-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay ("the Tribunal", for short)-in M. A. C. T. Application No. 2217 of 1984 and also the validity of Rule 306 (3) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 ("the Rules", for short), inasmuch as the said order dated 19th March, 1987 was based on the said rule. The short facts leading to the filing of this petition are as under.

(2.) ON 3rd April, 1984, son of the petitioner-the date dnyaneshwar Govind Surve was knocked down by a car at Chowpatty, Bombay, and he was admitted to J. J. Hospital by the police. The said Dnyaneshwar died at about 10 p. m. on the same day, i. e. 3rd April, 1984. The petitioner-mother filed an application for compensation, being M. A. C. T. Application No. 2217 of 1984, claiming an amount of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to the petitioner under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ("the Act", for short ). The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the brothers of the deceased and other sons of the petitioner. The respondents Nos. 7 to 10 are the sisters of the deceased and the daughters of the petitioner. It was held that the petitioner alone was entitled to receive the amount of compensation. The said application was settled for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-, with no order as to costs. Out of the said sum of Rs. 60,000/-, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was liable to be deducted being the amount already paid to the petitioner as stated earlier, leaving a balance of Rs. 45,000/ -.

(3.) ON 19th March, 1987, the petitioner made an application to the Tribunal for releasing the entire balance of Rs. 45,000/- deposited by the respondent No. 4. Insurance Company with the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner owned a pan-bidi shop, that the petitioner had given the said pan-bidi shop for conducting to a third party as the petitioner had no capital for conducting the said shop by herself. The petitioner expressed her desire to utilise the said amount in the said business, etc. By the impugned order dated 19th March 1987, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner being illiterate, the entire amount of Rs. 45,000/- could not be released to the petitioner. The Tribunal directed that out of the remaining amount of Rs. 45,000/- paid by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- be paid to the petitioner and the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- be invested with a nationalised bank for six years and interest be paid to the petitioner on the invested amount quarterly.