1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IA’IVI‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 4420 01‘2008 Petitioners 1. Kamlesh Dhruw, S/o. Late Hriday Ram (Claimants) Dhruw, aged abdut 4O years, 2. Smt. Ram Bai, W/o. Kamiesh Dhruw, aged about 37 years, Both R/o. Village Khildmundi, RS. Patan, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). Versus Respondents 1. ’I‘hakur Ram Dhruw (Now dead) Son of Madhavram Dhruw, aged about 35 years, RIO. Village Sikola, District Patan (C.G.) (Dn'ver) Deepak Kumar Ismni, I S/o. Chunni Lal Isram', R/o. House No.50, Sector 4 Devendra Nagar, Raip'ur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.Gn) (Owner) National Insurance Co. Ltd, Nivin Bazar, Near F111 Chowk, ‘T‘hroughr‘ National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Oillce, Akash Ganga Campus, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and Distiict Dm‘g (C.G.) (Insurarer) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227’ OF 'I‘HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shli-Satish K. Agnihotii J.) Shri D. N. Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioners. O R D E R (Passed on this 13th Day ofAugust, 2008) 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking a direction to release the amount lying in the fixed deposit, which was granted to them in a claim case. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners are parents of Revaram, who died on 29.102004 in an accident. The Claim Case N0. 105/2005 was filed by the petitioners, wherein vide award dated 23.8.2006, passed by the learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.’I‘..G.) a total compensation of Rs. 4,06,000/— (Four Lacs, Six Thousand) with 6% simple @ interest was awarded. Learned Claims Tribunal directed that the petitioners are entitled to equal sum out of the total compensation. Rs. 30,000/1 (Thirty ’I‘housaxld) each be paid to the petitioners in cash and the remaining amount be deposited in a fixed deposit scheme in any nationalized Bank for a period of'five years and the petitioners would be entitled to get the monthly interest accrued on that fixed deposit. Accordingly, Rs. 1,30;000/- and Rs. 1,65,626/— in the name of the petitioners No. 1 and 2, respectively, was deposited in the State Bank of Indore in fixed deposit scheme for a period of live years, the maturity of which is due in the year 201 1. Thereafter, the petitioners tiled an application before the Claims Tribunal for release of the Whole amount in cash on the ground that their house is in dilapidated condition and it does not worth living, thus they are required to get a new house constructed. Learned Claims Tribunal, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the petitioners, vide impugned. order dated 3.12.2007 (Annexure A/ 1), partly allowed the application and directed to release Rs. 30,000] - (Thirty Thousand) from the fixed deposit account of the petitioner No. 1 Kamlesh Kumar Dhruv. Being aggrieved the petitioners have filed this petition for release of the whole sum. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to substantiate the prayer for release of whole sum awarded by the Claims Tribunal, has cited a decision of this Court in the matter 'of \\ \ Paxasmai Semi Vs. Jcga Singh 8r. others; { 2002 (2) c.G.L..J. \ \ ~$¢ 232 }, wherein the j€ep of the claimant was met with an accident. The claimant{ow11er filed the claim case for repain’ng of the vehicle. Leaxned ’l‘dbunai awarded total compensation of Rs. 92,034} —, out ofwhich a sum of Rs. 90,000] — was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit scheme for a pen‘od of 10 years. Thereafter, the claimant filed an application for release of whole sum on the ground that the amount is required for repairing of the vehicle/jeep. Said application was rejected by the Claims Tribunal. This Court considering the fact that the amount was awarded on the claim for repairing of the vehicle, directed for release of the whole sum. In the present case, the claim was filed by the petitioners/parents on the ground that their son has died in the accident. The Claims Tribunal already directed for payment of Rs. 60,UOO/— i.e. Rs. 30,000/— each, to the petitioners, in cash and also directed for disbursement of monthly interest, accrued on the amount of fixed deposits. Thereafter, on the application filed by the petitioners, vide impugned order, an amount of Rs. 30,000j— has also been released. Thus, the decision in the matter of Parasmal Son! (supra), cited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is of no help. The amount so deposited was for subsistence of the dependant members of the deceased, not for construction of a house. If the entire money is released, there is no guarantee that the same would be used for subsistence purpose. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and having gone through the impugned order dated 3. 12.2007 this Court is of the opinion mat the reasons and findings (0F .dL'v recorded by the learned Claims Tn‘bunal are well-founded. It is well—nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jun'sdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from interfen’ng with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present CaSC. In View of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Thakur Sd/- i i Satish K. Agnihotrii j 1 l Judge