DIBAKAR PRADHAN Vs. ISWAR CHANDRA MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants in MAC Case No. 133 of 2006 as petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 03.09.2014 passed by learned 2nd Addl. District Judge -cum -M.A.C.T., Cuttack rejecting the petition for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioners being the parents of their deceased son, who died in a motor vehicle accident, along with their daughter, filed an application before the Tribunal for grant of compensation in MAC case No. 133 of 2006. After hearing the parties, the said MAC Case was disposed of awarding compensation in favour of the petitioners. However, learned Tribunal directed that out of the awarded compensation amount, a sum of rupees one lakh each would be kept in fixed deposit in the name of each of the petitioners for a period of six years in any Nationalized Bank. In compliance with the same, such amount was deposited with the opposite party No. 3 -Bank. Petitioners who are the parents of the deceased filed an application for withdrawal of Rs. 50,000 to meet the financial stringency. Therefore, that being allowed, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 remains as Fixed Deposit in the name of the petitioners in the opposite party No. 3 -Bank. Petitioner No. 2, who is a diabetic patient, having suffered gross loss of vision needs a surgical treatment, for which she wishes to go to a specialized eye Hospital. It appears that she had undergone treatment at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and to that extent prescriptions have been enclosed to the petition. Now for further treatment since the petitioners need money, petitioners want to close the fixed deposit by way of premature withdrawal. Accordingly, they filed an application before the learned Tribunal for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit for the treatment of petitioner No. 2. The learned Tribunal while passing the order dated 03.09.2014 permitted withdrawal of Rs. 25,000 out of the fixed deposit of Rs. 75,000 in respect of each of the fixed deposits of petitioners and directed that the rest amount along with interest, if any accrued shall remain as fixed deposit for the remaining period. Against the said order dated 03.09.2014, the petitioners have filed this application. They want premature withdrawal of the entire amount for the treatment of petitioner No. 2.

(2.) MR . Ananga Kumar Otta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously urged that the impugned order refusing to draw the entire fixed deposit amount prematurely for the treatment of petitioner No. 2, is contrary to the provisions of law. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Otta relied upon the judgments in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India and others, : AIR 1992 SC 248, G.M. Kerala R.T. Corporation v. Susama Thomas, : AIR 1994 SC 1631, H.S. Ahammed v. Irfan Ahmed, : AIR 2002 SC 2483 and Smt. Joginder Kaur v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed in C.R. No. 2880 of 2011 disposed of on 20.05.2011 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

(3.) THE apex Court in a case of compensation for death evolved a principle enunciated in Union Carbide Corporation (supra) wherein it is held that: