DHARAM PAL Vs. HOSHIYAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 01.08.2006, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kaithal. The petitioner is an un-fortunate father, whose unmarried young son aged about 20 years, died in a Motor Vehicular Accident which took place in the year 2004. He along with his wife filed a claim petition before the learned M.A.C.T., Kaithal, claiming compensation. The Tribunal vide its award dated 27.08.2005, awarded an amount of Rs. 1,66,000/- to the petitioner and his wife alongwith interest. The Tribunal while awarding compensation directed the deposit of the amount in the fixed deposit in equal shares in favour of the claimants in a nationalised bank for a period of five years with liberty to the claimants to apply for the release of the amount in case of any eventuality. Dharampal, petitioner made an application on 29.07.2006 seeking release of his share of the compensation amount on the ground that he intends to settle his younger son, namely, Balraj, in business. In the application filed before the Tribunal, it was stated that his son is working as an Electrician and he wants to settle him. The Tribunal appears to have recorded the statement of the petitioner and rejected the application on the ground that no documentary proof has been placed on record to establish that the need of the petitioner is genuine. The Tribunal, accordingly, held that it is not satisfied about the genuineness of the need and declined the prayer.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

(3.) THE Tribunal while declining the prayer referred two judgments of the Apex Court reported as Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others, 1994(2) PLR 01 and Lilaben Udesing Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 1996(3) RCR(Civil) 18 : 1996(3) PLR 328. In the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon certain principles enunciated in the cases of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991)4 SCC 584 and Muljibhai v. United India Insurance Co. Limited, (1982)23 (1) Gujarat Law Reporter 756, directed the Accident Claims Tribunals to observe the guidelines noticed in paragraph 17 of the judgment. It may be convenient to reproduce the guidelines which are as under :-