CR No. 6585 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6585 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.3.2009 Baldev Singh .. Petitioner v. Haryana Roadways Kaithal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No. 3. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the revision petition is to the order dated 1.8.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, `the Tribunal), whereby application filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of the amount of compensation lying deposited in the bank, has been rejected. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner filed the claim petition for compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road accident. The Tribunal vide award dated 15.9.2005 awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. After deposit of the awarded amount, 50% of the amount was released in cash to the petitioner. The remaining amount is lying deposited in FDR. The petitioner made an application for releasing the balance amount lying in FDR. The Tribunal has rejected this application. This Court fails to understand how the Tribunal directed to deposit the amount in fixed deposit. The Tribunal has no such jurisdiction in a case where the claimant is major. The condition incorporated by the Tribunal is uncalled for. The amount awarded to the petitioner was on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident which means that it was primarily for reimbursement of payment made by him and also on account of pain and sufferings. Such an amount should not have been directed to be kept in fixed deposit. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside CR No. 6585 of 2008 [2] and the application of the petitioner for release of amount kept in FDR is allowed. The bank is directed to release the amount to the petitioner on premature encashment of the FDR, if approached. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 31.3.2009 mk