REENA Vs. SHAMBHU DAYAL KUSHWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Sec. 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") has been preferred against the order dtd. 11/4/2023 passed by Member, First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in MACC No.43/2013 and 44/2013, whereby petitioners' No. 1, 2 and 5 application for premature release of the amount deposited in FDR was rejected.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that petitioners No. 1, 2 and 5 are wife, mother and daughter of the deceased Girjashankar, who along with other petitioners filed Motor Accident Claim Cases bearing Claim Case Nos.43/2013 and 44/2013 before the Member, First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, wherein vide order dtd. 6/1/2014, an award has been passed in favour of the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 5. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioners filed miscellaneous appeals bearing M.A. Nos.308/2014 and 309/2014 before this Court for enhancement of compensation amount, which were allowed by this Court vide order dtd. 26/7/2022 and total compensation amount of Rs.26,80,097.00 has been awarded in favour of the petitioners with a direction to deposit certain amount in the shape of FDR. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application before the Member, First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior for release of the aforesaid amount for purchasing of a plot situated at village Balyakhedi, Tahsil and District Indore and they have paid Rs.12,00,000.00 in advance and rest of the amount is required to be paid. Along with aforesaid application, copy of agreement to sale was also filed and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the said application vide order dtd. 11/4/2023. Being aggrieved thereof, this revision has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are poor person and after the death of deceased Girjashankar, petitioners No. 1, 2 and 5, i.e., his wife, mother and daughter respectively have no livelihood and they are living in a rented house, therefore, an agreement to sale for purchasing of a plot has been executed for constructing a house, accordingly, the petitioners filed an application along with copy of agreement to sale for release of compensation amount deposited in FDR. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without considering the requirement of the petitioners and without considering the averments made in the application, rejected the said application. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have right over the money which has been awarded to them and if the amount is not made available, when it is required, they would not be in a position to purchase the plot and construct the house. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Padma and others v. R.Venugopal and others reported in 2012 ACJ 698, and the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vimal and another v. Judge, Accidental Claims Tribunal, Churu reported in 2017 (3) T.A.C. 425 (Raj.) and the judgment passed in case case of Magnivai v. Suresh reported in 2000 (2) JLJ 417.