-\ SIngte B IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS ^ ' r^ •••'' ^'<^ ^-^:^ ^^•'''.s / ^;^ - •-A> .: ^ty/^ ^^^t/ RESPONDENTS ^^o.fTM^- /2oN WRIT PETITION 1. Ramkaran Gupta, S/o Late Shri Kapoorchand Gupta, aged about 64 years 2. Sushila Devi, W/o Late Shri Rajkumar , aged about 30 year 3. Pooja, D/o Late Shri Rajkumar aged about 5 Years 4. Punam, D/o Late Shri Rajkumar aged about 3 Years 5. Pawan, S/o Late Shri Rajkumar aged about 1 Years Petitioner No.3 & 5 Through- Natural guardian Smt Sushila Devi All R/o Pathalgaon, Thana - Pathalgaon, Caste -Agrawal, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS .. Mohan lal, S/o Premchand aged about 47 Years, R/o B.M.R. Transport Company,Tatibandh, Raipur, Thana-Amanaka, Raipur ( C.G ) (Driver & Owner) 3. Branch Manager The Oriantal Insurance Company Lmt.Itwari Bazar,Raigarh, Distt.-Raigarh ((C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PART1CULARS OF THE PETITIONERS As detailed above in the cause title 2. PARTICULARS, OF THE RESPONDENTS As de.tailed above in the cause title. P!"; II 1 Y. "^y^ "^6s.aS^<^ <y ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPTJR Writ Petition (227) No. 1742 of2Qll PETITIONERS : Ramkaran Gupta & others VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Mohan Lal & another WiRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF TEIE CONSTITtmON QFD'iDIA (SBL Hpn'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the petitioners. QRAL ORDFR (Passedon 31.03.2011) Legality and propriety of the order dated 07.01.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (for sfaort the Tribuaal) dismissing the petitioner's application for withdrawal of the amount deposited in fixed deposit in the names ofpetitionerNo. 1 & 2 is under assail in the instant petition. Withdrawal of the amount deposited in the fixed deposit was claimed on the ground that petitioner No. l/Ramkaraa Giipta is an old person and suffering from skin disease (SORASIS), and petitioner No. 2/Sushila Devi is in need of money as she has three ehildren and the amount is required for his treatment and for payment of School fee and other expenses respectively. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and having perused the order impugned, without entering into the merits of the case, sufSce it to say that the Tribunal has dismissed the application in a cr^-ptic manner without assigning any reason therefor and without making any enquiry on the applications as per para 23 (i) and (viii) ofthe judgment of Supreme Court in case of General Manager, Kerala SR.TC Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas , which is not proper. 4. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 07.01.2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to reconsider the application after making an enquiry into the matter regarding ailment ofpetitioner No. 1 and School fee and other expenses of petitioner No. 2, and thereafter to pass the order in accordance with the guidelines issued in case of General Manager, Kerala SRTC Trivandrum (Supra) after \" -'i---^/ recording evidence. 5. The petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd//- ? NX-Agrawal Judge Sahu '.1994 (2^SCC 176