RAVINDRA NATH KHOSLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the order proposed by this court, it is not necessary to issue notice to other side.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 26.3.98 the court has directed the non-applicants to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the applicant under the head of no fault liability, but at the same time has directed that the said amount be deposited with some bank for a period of six years. Being aggrieved by the latter direction the applicant has filed this petition on the ground that the applicant has suffered fractures and needs money for his treatment. His further submission is that the court below was unjustified in directing deposit of the amount without appreciating the true import of the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 994 ACJ 1 (SC). It appears that the court has not taken into consideration the facts of the case which was decided by the Supreme Court. In the said matter, the Supreme Court directed that when money is finally awarded, it should be deposited in the fixed deposit and should properly be monitored by the court. The facts of the said case were different so al ,o the principles laid down by the Supreme Court would not be applicable to the present case because the interim award is made in favour of a person so that his need of money for the time being is satisfied and with the help of the said amount, he is in a position to go for proper treatment, etc. The direction made by the court for depositing the amount in a nationalised bank for a period of six years is set aside. If proper application is made by the present applicant, the trial court shall direct release of the money in favour of the applicant. The petition is finally disposed of. Petition allowed.