In this revision petition, the High Court disposed of an appeal against an order where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adjourned an application for encashing Fixed Deposit Receipts sine-die.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 1220 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 5.3.2009
Bimla Devi and another ... .Petitioners Versus Surjeet Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the petitioners.
RAJESH BINDAL J
The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, dated 26.7.2008, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for getting the fixed deposit receipts encashed has been adjourned sine-die to await orders from this Court.
Briefly the facts are that on account of death of their son, the petitioners filed claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which was allowed vide award dated August 9, 2003 determining a sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- payable to the petitioners along with interest. Out of the amount awarded Rs. 70,000/- was directed to be released in cash and balance was deposited in FDRs for a period of three years. The petitioners were entitled to get interest on the FDRs on monthly/quarterly basis. As the term for which the Tribunal directed the amount to be kept in FDRs expired, the petitioners moved application before the Tribunal for getting the same released. However, in a totally in-considerate manner the Tribunal adjourned the application sine-die to await the order from this court. It is this order of the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present petition.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that against the award passed in favour of the petitioners, the Insurance Company had filed appeal bearing FAO No. 5249 of 2003 which was simply admitted on July 16, 2007 without there being any interim stay. Once this Court had not granted any interim stay of execution of impugned award there was no reason for the Tribunal to have adjourned hearing the application for release of FDRs in favour of petitioners by observing that the same would be considered after the orders of this Court. As the period which was initially fixed by the learned Tribunal for keeping the amount in FDRs has already expired, the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sirsa where the amount is lying in the fixed deposit receipts is directed to release the amount of FDRs along with interest to the petitioners immediately.
The revision petition is disposed of.
(RAJESH BINDAL) 5.3.2009 JUDGE Reema
Bimla Devi and another
Surjeet Singh and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
