Dismissed

Geeta @ Gita Devi v. Uco Bank Karkardooma Court Complex Delhi

Delhi HC6 Mar 2017W.P.(C)/2036/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking premature release of a Fixed Deposit created against compensation payable to a widow following her husband's accidental death. The court held that the fund was intended to replace monthly income, not provide a lump sum, and the alleged need for marriage expenses did not justify interference.

What did the court decide?

The petition praying for release of the balance FDR amount was declined and the writ petition was dismissed.

Geeta @ Gita Devi Vs Uco Bank Karkardooma… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2036/2017 & CM 8985/2017

¶4

GEETA @ GITA DEVI ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Dalip Kumar Santoshi, Advocate with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

UCO BANK KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI

¶7

..... Respondent Through : Md. Khairul Hussain, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 06.03.2017

¶12

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuing directions to UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch to release a sum of Rs.2,10,527/- placed in a FDR in terms of an order passed in the MACT proceedings.

¶13

Prior to filing the present petition, the petitioner had approached the learned MACT court asking for pre-mature release of the FDR. The said application was however rejected vide order dated 28.1.2017 wherein, it was recorded that an accident had taken place on 3.6.2015, when the petitioner’s husband had lost his life. A sum of Rs.11,65,000/- was paid as compensation to his family members in the course of the MACT proceedings. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.5,57,500/- was released in favour of the petitioner on 19.1.2016 and 3.2.2016. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.50,000/-

¶14

¶15

was released in favour of the petitioner on 2.5.2016. Subsequently, a FDR of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn in favour of the minor son of the petitioner, was also released on maturity. In all, by now the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.8,07,500/- from out of the total compensation of Rs.11,65,000/-. Noting that no details have been furnished by the petitioner as to where and how the aforesaid amount has been spent, the learned trial court has rejected her request for release of the balance amount on the ground that she needs the funds for the marriage of her son and daughter schedule for tomorrow.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner states that the money received by the petitioner earlier was used towards undertaking some construction work in the residential premises. The said submission is however contrary to the averments made in para 7 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioner has specifically stated that the said amounts were spent in paying back the money that had been borrowed by her deceased husband, without a shred of document filed on record to substantiate the said averment.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has been called upon to give the details of the family members left behind by Late Shripal (husband of the petitioner). The Court is informed that apart from his widow, the petitioner herein, he is survived by four children out of whom, one is already married, the marriage of two children (a son and daughter) is scheduled for tomorrow and there is a school going son aged 14 years.

¶18

Merely because of two of the petitioner’s children are to get married tomorrow, would not be a ground to interfere in the impugned order. The trial court is justified in observing that the purpose of awarding the compensation is to put the family members of the deceased in the same financial position as they would have been had the deceased been alive and

¶19

¶20

from the compensation received, his family members would have continued to receive a portion of his income every month, but not in a lump sum fashion.

¶21

If the remaining amount lying with the Bank is also directed to be released in favour of the petitioner right away, there will be nothing left for a fall back. Even the education of the minor son is likely to be jeopardised. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prayer made in the petition is declined. The writ petition is dismissed along with the pending application.

¶22

HIMA KOHLI, J
MARCH 06, 2017
sk/ap

¶23

Geeta @ Gita Devi v. Uco Bank Karkardooma Court Complex Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta @ Gita Devi v. Uco Bank Karkardooma Court Complex Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rekha Devi Vs DDA

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Gurmeet Kaur

K.S.Jawatkar Vs the Chancellor Prof. Yash Pal and Ors.

T P Karunakaran Vs Union of India

Rambeti Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Daulat Singh Chauhan Vs S.D.M.C. & Ors.

Pankaj Vs Jagdish and Ors.

Vandana Varma Vs UOI & Ors.

Ratul Puri Vs Central Bank of India

Nisha Jindal & Anr. Vs Ram Prag Koiree & Anr.

Prem Kumari Vs Brij Lal & Anr.

Manish Kumar Vs the Chief Election Commissioner

Khushi Mohd. Vs D.D.A.

Dinesh Chand & Anr. Vs Begraj