CR No. 4517 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4517 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.08.2009 Manish minor son of Sh. Anil Kumar son of Lakhmi Chand, through his father and next friend, r/o village Pukharpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Dharmender son of Lachhu/Laxman Singh, r/o village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (Driver of motor cycle No. HR-26-X-1997). 2. Surender Kumar son of Sh. Sat Narain, r/o village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (owner of motor cycle No. HR- 26-X-1997). 3. National Insurance Co. through its Branch Manager at Gurgaon (insurer of motor cycle No. HR-26-X-1997) ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 24.03.09, rendered by the CR No. 4517 of 2009 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, vide which, it dismissed the application for release of the amount of compensation of the minor claimant, to his father. 2. In the claim petition, filed by Manish (minor), through his father, vide award dated 13.12.07, compensation, in the sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- with interest, was awarded. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, directed that the awarded sum of compensation, shall be deposited in some recurring fixed deposit scheme, fetching maximum rate of interest, in some nationalized bank's branch for two years. It was further directed that the claimant, would be entitled to draw the amount, after attaining the age of majority. 3. An application for release of the amount, in favour of the father of the minor claimant, was filed, on the ground, that he was in need of money, for the treatment of the minor, and to repay the loan amount. It was further stated that, in case, the decretal amount, was not paid, the father of the claimant, would suffer heavy losses on account of payment of interest on the loan amount. It was further stated that the the father of the minor claimant, had no source of income, to repay the debt, and to spend on treatment. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the application, was dismissed, vide order dated 24.03.09, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and CR No. 4517 of 2009 3 have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that it was established, that the father of the minor, had obtained loan, for the treatment of the minor, from Anil, Krishan Kumar, and Jagmal Singh. She further submitted that for the return of that loan, the amount deposited, in the name of the minor, in the fixed deposit, was required by him. She further submitted that, even the amount, was required, for further treatment of the minor. She further submitted that the Court below, was wrong, in dismissing the application, for release of the amount. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. Since the compensation, was awarded, in favour of the minor, it was, for the Court, to protect his interest. It was keeping in view, the over all interest of the minor, that the Claims Tribunal, directed the deposit of the amount of compensation, in the fixed deposit, in some nationalized bank, so that on attaining majority, he was able to withdraw the same. It is the duty of the father, to provide best treatment to his minor son, for the injuries, he sustained, in the accident. It is also the duty of the father, to pay the amount of debt, if any, incurred by him, for the treatment of his son, from his own sources. He could not be allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded, in favour of the minor, and deposited, in his name, in the fixed deposit, in some nationalized bank. The interest of CR No. 4517 of 2009 4 the minor, being of prime importance, in my opinion, the Claims Tribunal was right in declining the application, keeping in view the factum that the likelihood of the amount of compensation, if released, in favour of the father, being squandered away could not be ruled out. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order of the Court below, is , liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision-petition, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 12.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE