Allowed

Smt. Chhoti Devi W/O Sh. Umrav v. Rakesh Meena S/O Sh. Sundar Lal

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2020CW/1863/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order dismissing a prayer for premature release of an FDR. The Court directed the Tribunal to permit the release of funds for installing a tube-well.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 of the Tribunal was set aside; and the Tribunal is directed to release the FDR amount as per the application dated 30.10.2019.

Smt. Chhoti Devi W/O Sh. Umrav Vs Rakesh Meena S/O Sh. Sundar Lal — Rajasthan HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1863/2020

¶3

Smt. Chhoti Devi W/o Sh. Umrav, Aged About 57 Years, By Cast Gurjar, R/o Milakpur, Tehsil Bansur, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶4

Vijendra Gurjar S/o Sh. Umrav, Aged About 15 Years, By Cast Gurjar, Minor Through Its Natural Guardian Mother Of Smt. Chhoti Devi W/o Sh. Umrav, R/o Milakpur, Tehsil Bansur, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rakesh Meena S/o Sh. Sundar Lal, By Cast Meena, R/o Gaushala Road, Buchaheda, Kotputali, Tehsil Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur. (Driver Of Vehicle Maruti Eco No. Rj-32-Ca2376)

¶8

Jagdish Prasad Saini S/o Sh. Tularam, By Cast Mali, R/o Near Bhola Ki School, Gaushala Road, Dhani Motiwali, Kotputali, Tehsil Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur (Owner Of Vehicle Of Maruti Eco No. Rj-32-Ca-2376)

¶9

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd., 15Th Floor Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Off Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai400013. (Insurer Vehicle Of Maruti Eco No. Rj-32-Ca2376).

¶10

	----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. NeerajJoshi.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rizwan Ahmed for Insurance Comapany.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶12

Order

¶13

08/02/2020

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bansur (hereinafter to be referred as

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-1863/2020]

¶17

‘Tribunal’) whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for pre-mature release of FDR was dismissed.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of her son Kailash & Lekhraj. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.05.2019 allowed the claim application and passed an award to the tune of Rs.7,50,400/- in favour of the petitioners and directed for depositing the amount in FDR in terms of the order dated 21.05.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for premature release of FDR as the petitioner No.1 was in the need of money for installing a new tube-well and the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.12.2019. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-claimants challenging the order dated 03.12.2019.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that for installing a new tube-well, the petitioner is in the need of money which is lying in FDR and prayed that the Tribunal be directed to release the amount lying in the FDR.

¶20

Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has no serious objection to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners-claimants.

¶21

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also the fact that the petitioner No.1 is in the need of money lying in FDR, for installing a new tube-well, I deem it just and proper to allow this writ petition.

¶23

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The application dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure-2) filed by the

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-1863/2020]

¶26

petitioners-claimants before the Tribunal for release of the amount lying in FDR is allowed as prayed therein. The Tribunal is directed to pass necessary orders in this regard.

¶27

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶28

MG/28

Smt. Chhoti Devi W/O Sh. Umrav v. Rakesh Meena S/O Sh. Sundar Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chhoti Devi W/O Sh. Umrav v. Rakesh Meena S/O Sh. Sundar Lal

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

Mohan Singh Andanr Vs Shri Kunjilal Meena and Ors.

Ramswaroop Ghotwal S/O Shri Gangaram Vs Administrator/District Collector

M/S Magnet Cafe Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh S/O Sh. Prathvi Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokender Singh Vs Shri Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

Mahesh Jain Vs Shri Mukesh Sharma