Allowed

Sukhvinder Singh v. Vijay Kumar & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Aug 2010CR/190/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order refusing release of money in Fixed Deposit. Held that barring release of Rs.2,15,000 compensation for a self-employed industrialist was unjustified. Revision allowed, impugned order set aside, release of entire FDR allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; application for release of whole of money lying in Fixed Deposit allowed.

Sukhvinder Singh Vs Vijay Kumar & Ors. — Medical Negligence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CR No.190 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.190 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.08.2010

Sukhvinder Singh

..Petitioner

Vs.

Vijay Kumar & Ors.

..Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma

¶11

Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

None for the respondents.

¶13

Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this court to challenge the order dated 7.01.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short the Tribunal), vide which application moved by the petitioner for release of money lying in FDR No.0496183 dated 5.3.2009 has been declined.

¶15

The petitioner who is an industrialist, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident. Claim petition field by the petitioner was allowed by the learned Tribunal, and he was granted Rs.2,15,000/- (Rupees two lacs and fifteen thousand only) as compensation for the injuries suffered.

¶16

Learned Tribunal at the time of passing of award directed

¶17

CR No.190 of 2010

¶18

¶19

release of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), and rest of the money was directed to be deposited in fixed deposit.

¶20

The petitioner moved an application, for the release of the amount lying in FDR, as it was required by him for running his industry more effectively by making proper investment, as well as for the medical expenses but incurred on the treatment.

¶21

Learned trial court released another sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) of the FDR without assigning any reason as to why the remaining amount was not to be released.

¶22

The purpose of keeping the amount in fixed deposit is to protect the old, infirm and the children, so that guardian of those persons are not able to use that money, leaving them helpless. The compensation awarded to a person, who is well educated and running an industry, cannot be directed to be kept in fixed deposit against his wishes nor the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application to release the money of FDR.

¶23

The petitioner is educated and self employed person, therefore, is in need of money, which belongs to him.

¶24

Consequently, this revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The application moved by the petitioner for release of whole of money lying in FDR is allowed.

¶25

No costs.

¶26

(Vinod K.Sharma) Judge

¶27

16.08.2010 rp

Sukhvinder Singh v. Vijay Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhvinder Singh v. Vijay Kumar & Ors.

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

(O&M) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Subhash Chand and Others

(O&M) United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar and Ors.

Manjit Kaur Vs Oriental Insurance Co.

Punjab Wakf Board Vs Nagar Panchayat, Shahkot

(O&M) the New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Lachhmi and Others

(O&M) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sunita Devi and Others