Allowed

Smt. Reena Rani v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Meerut and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2021WRIC/8122/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a plea for premature release of FDR funds. Court set aside the rejection on grounds of lack of reasoning and bona fides, directing issuance of funds for daughter's marriage.

What did the court decide?

Order of 20.11.2020 set aside; Tribunal directed to release Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest within one month.

Smt. Reena Rani Vs Motor Accident Claim… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8122 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Reena Rani

¶4

Respondent :- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Meerut And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Kishore Srivastava,Pavan Kishore

¶5

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

Considering the nature of the case, the facts are not being disputed in the present case.

¶8

It appears that the husband of the petitioner had died in an accident and for the loss occurred on account of death of her husband in a car accident on 1.10.2017, a MAC No.153 of 2018 has been instituted by the applicant-petitioner against the respondents, which was decided on the basis of compromise between the parties, a copy of compromise dated 9.3.2019 is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, on the basis of which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut passed an award dated 9.3.2019, a copy of which is enclosed as Annxure-3 to the writ petition.

¶9

As per the compromise the respondent no.4 was required to pay Rs. 17,50,000/- as compensation, out of which Rs.4,50,000/- was to be paid to the petitioner immediately and Rs. 3,00,000/-was to be fixed in fixed deposit for three years. The balance of the amount has been deposited in the name of the minors. The amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, which has been fixed in the name of the petitioner in a fixed deposit scheme, will mature on 3.8.2022.

¶10

It appears that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner had been settled and was to be solemnized on 7th December, 2020. The petitioner submitted an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the release of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- invested in FDR as she needed money for the marriage of her daughter. The said application was numbered as Misc. Case No. 639 of 2020. The Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut vide order dated 20.11.2020 rejected the application holding that since the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- has been

¶11

released in favour of the applicant-petitioner and the FDR is going to mature on 3.8.2022, therefore, it is not in the interest of the petitioner to premature the FDR. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rejected the application.

¶12

Challenging the order dated 20.11.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an award has been passed in favour of the petitioner and the money is needed for the marriage of her daughter and the cause shown for the release of money was genuine and bona fide and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner for releasing the money. He submits that the Tribunal has not given due consideration to the cause for which the petitioner sought the release of the money and in the absence of such consideration by the Tribunal, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

Reading of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal, while rejecting the application of the petitioner, has not assigned any reason as to whether the cause shown by the petitioner for the release of money is genuine and bona fide and without recording any finding on the said issue, the Tribunal surreptitiously held that it is not in the interest of justice for the claim to pre-mature the FDR. In the opinion of the Court the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for rejecting the application are not sustainable, particularly in view of the fact that the marriage of the petitioner was settled and was to be solemnized on 7.12.2020, which is evident from the Marriage Card.

¶15

In this view of the matter, the order dated 20.11.2020 is not sustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. The Tribunal is directed to release the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs) along with interest, which has accrued on the said amount to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the Allahabad High Court.

¶16

The writ petition is allowed subject to the

¶17

observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.6.2021 SKM

Smt. Reena Rani v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Meerut and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reena Rani v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Meerut and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kusum Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Hina Kausar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Shama Parveen and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt. Priyanka and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt. Ruchi Yadav and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Smt. Vijay Laxmi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others