Allowed

Mohammad Khayam Son of Abbas v. Ram Prasad Son of Nand Kishor

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2019CW/1732/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition where the petitioner sought release of motor accident compensation deposited by the insurer. Although a prior order mandated deposit in the Postal Monthly Income Scheme, the Court allowed withdrawal of 60% of the amount due to the petitioner's dire financial need, directing the remainder to follow the previous direction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to withdraw 60% of the compensation deposited; remaining 40% to be deposited in the Monthly Income Scheme as directed earlier.

Mohammad Khayam Son of Abbas Vs Ram Prasad Son of… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1732/2019

¶3

Mohammad Khayam Son Of Abbas, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Musalman, Resident Of Manipur, Tehsil Durgaganj, District Purniya (Bihar) And Also Resident Of Barudhan, Tehsil And District Bundi

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ram Prasad Son Of Nand Kishor, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Barundhan, District Bundi.

¶7

Kanha Son Of Bala, By Caste Gurjar, Resident Of Barundhan, District, Bundi. (Raj.)

¶8

United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Upper Allahabad Bank, Chhawni Chauraha, Kota (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kapil Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Mathur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDRA SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

03/07/2019

¶14

Aggrieved of the order made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), dated 4^th October, 2018, wherein deposit of the amount of compensation, in terms of the award dated 27^th October, 2007, enhanced in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Number 4473 of 2007: Mohammad Khayam Vs. Ram Prasad & Ors. and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Number 108 of 2004: Kanha Vs. Mohammad Khayam & Ors., vide order dated 18^th July, 2014; has been insisted upon while declining his application for

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-1732/2019]

¶17

release of amount of compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent – Insurance Company deposited the amount through a cheque for an amount of Rs.2,27,910/- (Rupees: Two Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ten), before the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner prayed for deposit of the amount in his account, but the Tribunal declined the prayer in view of the order made by this Court on the misc. appeals (supra) dated 18^th July, 2014, wherein the amount of compensation so also enhanced compensation, was to be deposited along with interest, in the name of the petitioner (claimant-appellant), in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS), in the nearest Post Office for a period of five years and permission was accorded only to withdraw monthly/quarterly interest accruing thereupon as per the Scheme of the Post Office. The balance amount was to be disbursed to the petitioner by the Tribunal through a bank draft/banker cheque, whereas the petitioner is in dire need of money.

¶19

Per contra ; Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal, Advocate, resisting the claim of the petitioner while supporting the impugned order, contended that the Tribunal committed no error in declining the application of the petitioner in view of the order made by this Court on Misc. Appeals (supra), dated 18^th July, 2014.

¶20

Heard and considered.

¶21

Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties made at the bar and the directions issued by this Court on the Misc. Appeals (supra), vide order dated 18^th July, 2014; interest of justice would be served, if the petitioner is

¶22

(3 of 3) [CW-1732/2019]

¶23

allowed to withdraw 60% of the compensation amount, which has been accrued to the petitioner and has been deposited with the Tribunal. Rest of the 40% amount of the compensation shall be deposited in the Monthly Income Scheme of the Post Office as directed vide order dated 18^th July, 2014, on the Misc. Appeals (supra).

¶24

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application is disposed off.

¶25

(VEERENDRA SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶26

SUNIL SOLANKI /19/63

Mohammad Khayam Son of Abbas v. Ram Prasad Son of Nand Kishor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Khayam Son of Abbas v. Ram Prasad Son of Nand Kishor

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

Bheem Raj Suman S/O Shri Ram Chandra Ji S/O Shri Gyarsiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Devi Singh S/O Balwant Singh Vs State Bank of India

Mangu Ram Alias Mangiram Vs Chairman Board of Revenue Ajme

Dharmendra Singh S/O Shri Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

D G Raj Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Senior Divisional Commercial Manager