MUKHTYARBI Vs. PRITHVIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was issued to the insurance company which had deposited amount in the Claims Tribunal but none appeared. The question is totally dependent on interpreting the legal aspect of the matter and, therefore, this court is examining the order which is being assailed by this revision petition.

(2.) An application was submitted by the petitioner before M.A.C.T., Indore, which decided the said application by which the prayer was made by the petitioner for releasing the amount of award which has been invested by making reference to the observations made by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), by passing an order on 19.8.1999. The learned Judge pointed out the guideline Nos. (i) and (iii) which can be quoted as hereunder:

(3.) The learned Tribunal pointed out in para 4 of the order passed by it that it held the opinion that since the claimant decree-holder is reported to be semi-literate person and she does not require any amount for expanding any existing business or for purchasing some property for earning her livelihood, the directions contained in the guideline No. (i) are to be followed.