Allowed

Manoj Kumar S/O Ramcharan v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2019CW/3190/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court interfered with an order declining the withdrawal of fixed deposit amounts. The petitioner, injured in a road accident, sought to utilize half of the deposits for agricultural operations. The Court allowed the withdrawal request.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is entitled to withdraw 50% of the amounts of the Fixed Deposit Receipts involved.

Manoj Kumar S/O Ramcharan Vs Icici Lombard General… — Medical Negligence | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3190/2019

¶3

Manoj Kumar S/o Ramcharan, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Meena, R/o Kapren Tehsil K, Patan, Distt. Bundi (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Jenitha House, Keshavrao Kade Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai (Insurer).

¶7

Kanhaiya Lal S/o Ramkishan, B/c Jangid, R/o Railway Station, Kapren, Tehsil K. Patan, Distt. Bundi. (Driver And Owner)

¶8

Rajendra Kumar Suwalka S/o Rameshwar Lal Suwalka, R/o Mataji Road, Kunhari, Kota. (Insured)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ram Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.R. Dhakar on behalf of Mr.
	Chandra Deep Singh Lodha

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

01/07/2019

¶14

Aggrieved of the order dated 27^th November, 2018, the petitioner has approached this Court for an application for release of money out of Fixed Deposits to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for three years and another Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for five years, has been declined.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount aforesaid was deposited in the Fixed Deposits in view of the award dated 23rd February, 2018, made by the Family Court

¶16

(2 of 2) [CW-3190/2019]

¶17

and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi (Rajasthan), in lieu of compensation on account of injury suffered by the petitioner in a road accident on 30^th April, 2009.

¶18

It is further pointed out that the petitioner, who sustained injuries in the accident, has sufferred almost a decade and the amount which has been awarded as compensation, has been put in Fixed Deposits and he is not able to utilise the same for agricultural operations.

¶19

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner needs finance for agricultural purposes; I am inclined to grant the application.

¶20

Accordingly, impugned order dated 27^th November, 2018, is interfered with and is hereby set aside.

¶21

The petitioner would be entitled to withdraw 50% of the amount of the FDRs involved herein.

¶22

Writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed, in terms as aforesaid.

¶23

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶24

Pcg/28

Manoj Kumar S/O Ramcharan v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar S/O Ramcharan v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

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

Mohammad Sayed Vs State of Rajasthan through Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

M/S Marda Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Shyam Vihar Vikas Samiti Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Nati Bai W/O Ramkishan Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

R.P. Meena S/O Shri S.L. Meena Vs Union of India

Suresh Kumar Saini S/O Chaju Ram Saini Vs Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board, through Its Secretary