BUDH PRAKASH SAINI Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 29.8.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar on his application whereby the application for premature release of the F.D. has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to place any proof of the loan taken by him which is required to be repaid.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts of the case are that Tarachand, the brother of the petitioner filed a claim petition against respondent Nos. 1 to 8 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar for grant of compensation on account of the injury sustained by him in the accident. In the said claim petition an award was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 25.9.2003 to the tune of Rs. 2,49,400 with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition. As per the direction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FDR was made for a period of 5 years in the name of the injured brother with the further direction to make payment of quarterly interest to him and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000 was deposited in his saving account. The injured claimant brother of the petitioner died on 25.1.2005. Thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner on 1.6.2005 for premature release of F.D.R.

(3.) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has relied on the case of Smt. Lali and Ors. v. M.A.C.T., Sikar and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 31247 2005, decided by this Court on 11.5.2005 and has also not interfered on the ground of repayment of the loan. The another fresh ground taken in the said writ petition before this Court was the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner for which liberty was given. The judgment in Smt. Lali and Anr. v. M.A.C. T., Sikar, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of daughter of petitioner No. 1 marriage, she require premature release out of the fixed deposit. Earlier the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 24,3.2005 as the reason for premature release was shown that the petitioner No. 1 has to repay the loan. I do not find any fault or error in the order dated 24.3.2005. However, the petitioners are at liberty to move fresh application before the M.A.C.T., Sikar. The M.A.C.T., Sikar is directed to consider the application and after verifying the fact that marriage of petitioner's daughter is going to take place on 23.5.2005, shall pass the order for premature release of the adequate amount. Looking to the urgency, it is expected from the Tribunal to decide the application epeditiously. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.