Allowed

Chattar Singh v. M.a.C.T., Hisar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Mar 2011CR/1867/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged an order denying early release of compensation deposited in a fixed deposit. The court held it just and expedient to allow premature withdrawal of the entire amount due to the petitioner's medical treatment costs and high interest burden.

What did the court decide?

The entire amount of compensation deposited in the fixed deposit was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner by making premature withdrawal.

Chattar Singh Vs M.a.C.T., Hisar and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1867 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of Decision: March 17, 2011.

¶5

Civil Revision No.1867 of 2011

¶6

Chattar Singh

¶7

Versus

¶8

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Hisar, and others ..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not.

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocae, for the petitioner.

¶14

-.-

¶15

MOHINDER PAL, J.

¶16

Petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar (for short `the Tribunal’) whereby the application of the petitioner for releasing him the amount of compensation kept in Fixed Deposit Receipt has been declined.

¶17

In the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he was awarded compensation of Rs.81200/- by the Tribunal for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. However, nothing was ordered to be paid to the petitioner

¶18

Civil Revision No.1867 of 2011

¶19

immediately and the whole amount of compensation was ordered to be deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipt for three years by the Tribunal. In this case, the petitioner was operated upon for the dislocation of his left hip and a plate had to be inserted. It has been contended that the petitioner had to borrow money on his treatment for which he had to pay higher rate of interest.

¶20

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and expedient that this petition is allowed and the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioner is ordered to be released in his favour by making premature withdrawal of the amount kept in Fixed Deposit Receipt for three years. Ordered accordingly.

¶21

Dated: March 17 ,2011. ( MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE

Chattar Singh v. M.a.C.T., Hisar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chattar Singh v. M.a.C.T., Hisar and 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

Savita and Others Vs Satish Kumar and Others

Saroj Rani Vs Raj Dulari and Anr.

Manmohan Singh & Anr. Vs Harbans Singh & Ors.

Vidya Devi Vs Ravinder Saini

Teja Singh Vs Ranbir Singh

Jasmat and Anr. Vs Partap and Ors.