Partly allowed

Inala Vijaya Lakshmi, v. S.Nageswara Rao

Telangana HC5 Jun 2013MACMA/1014/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Traffics Claims Tribunal, the High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw Rs.7,00,000 from a fixed deposit of Rs.17,00,000 awarded for her husband's death in a road accident, rejecting the Tribunal's reliance on the expired withdrawal period.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw a sum of Rs.7,00,000 from the amount deposited in the fixed deposit.

Inala Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs S.Nageswara Rao — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.1014 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)

¶4

The husband of the appellant, by name Venkateswara Rao died in a road accident. The appellant and other family members filed M.V.O.P.No.174 of 2010 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Jude, Eluru for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The O.P. was allowed on 07.10.2011 and a sum of Rs.19,72,409/- was awarded. The appellant was exclusively awarded a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. The Tribunal directed that the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the balance shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank.

¶5

The appellant filed I.A.No.2251 of 2012 with a prayer to permit her to withdraw the entire amount, which is in the fixed deposit, stating that the amount is needed to repay the loans that have been raised for the study of her children. The Tribunal dismissed the I.A. through its order, dated 08.11.2012. Hence, this M.A.C.M.A. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Though the insurance company is served with notice, it has not entered appearance.

¶6

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- to the appellant and directed that a sum of Rs.17,00,000/shall be kept in a fixed deposit. The appellant approached the Tribunal with an application seeking permission to withdraw the entire amount, citing the reason that the amount is needed for repayment of the

¶7

loans raised by her. The only reason mentioned by the Tribunal for rejecting the application is that it was filed before the expiry of the time stipulated in the order passed by it. If there exists any necessity, warranting withdrawal of the amount, before the stipulated time, permission can certainly be accorded.

¶8

Even according to the appellant, a loan of about Rs.4,00.000/- and gold loan of Rs.1,00,000/- were raised. For repayment thereof, it is not necessary that the entire amount be withdrawn. Even if the accrued interest is taken into account, the amount does not exceed Rs.7,00,000/-, with interest.

¶9

Hence, we partly allow the appeal, permitting the appellant to withdraw a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) from the amount, which is now deposited to her credit.

¶10

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶12

S.V.BHATT, J

¶13

Date: 05.06.2013 JSU

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶16

M.A.C.M.A.No.1014 of 2013

¶17

Date: 05.06.2013

¶18

JSU

Inala Vijaya Lakshmi, v. S.Nageswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inala Vijaya Lakshmi, v. S.Nageswara Rao

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

M/s. Sri Surya Granites Vs Sri G. Venkateshwarlu

M/s. Sri Surya Granites Vs Sri G. Venkateswarlu

M/s. Sri Surya Granites Vs Sri G. Venkateshwarlu

Vajja Prakasarao, Vs Sri Visakha Grameena Bank

Shaikh Abdul Haque, Vs Durdana Qaiser

Shaikh Abdul Haque Vs Durdana Qaiser