1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Smt. Gulab Bai & Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13881/2009) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :- 05th March, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Veyankatesh Garg, for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer whereby the learned Tribunal has declined the application of the petitioners for release of the compensation amount kept in FDRs. Due to the death of her husband in motor vehicle accident, the petitioner No.1., Smt. Gulab Bai, had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. After going through oral and documentary evidence, vide award dated 23.02.2000, the learned Tribunal had directed that the compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- should be paid to the petitioners. Simultaneously, it had directed that amount of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000 and Rs.15,000/- shall be kept in the name of 2 petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 who were minor at the relevant time. Since the petitioner No.1, who happens to be a widow, and who needs to feed and take care of her children, wanted to buy a piece of land, she desperately needed the amount of compensation, which has been kept in FDRs. Therefore, she filed an application for release of the FDR amount before the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Veyankatesh Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the case of Teeja Devi (Smt.) Vs. The Judge, MACT, Jaipur [2006 RAR 242] in order to buttress his contention that the amount of compensation should ordinarily be dealt with as per the wishes of the claimant. According to him, since the petitioner No.1 desperately needs to buy the land in order to maintain her family economically and physically, the learned Tribunal should have directed the encashment of the fixed deposit. Head the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. It is, indeed, a sorry state of affairs that a widow, who has to look after the welfare of four children, has to run from pillar to post, from Court to Court, begging that the compensation amount, which is rightly hers, should be 3 released. According to the petitioner, while three of her children namely, Radheyshyam, Miss. Manju & Miss. Rekha have attained majority, it is only Miss. Kaushalya, who is still a minor. Considering the fact that a widow lady desperately needs the money in order to buy land so that she could sustain her family, the learned Tribunal should have been sensitive to her plight. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in directing the Tribunal to ensure that the fixed deposits which are in the name of Radheyshyam S/o Late Shri Gajanand, Miss. Manju D/o Late Shri Gajanand & Miss. Rekha D/o Late Shri Gajanand be directed to be encashed in favour of the petitioner No.1, Smt. Gulab Bai, the wife of Late Shri Gajanand. Since Miss. Kaushalya is still a minor, the amount which was kept in fixed deposit in her name, namely Rs.15,000/-, should continue to be kept in fixed deposit. This Court has come across a large number of cases emanating from similar set of facts where a widow has to repeatedly plead that her compensation amount be released so that she can feed, cloth and educate her children. The Presiding Officer of MACTs should not only be aware of the poverty of this Country, but most importantly should be sensitive to the plight of a widow in an Indian society. It is the foremost duty of the Judiciary to protect and promote the interest of the people. The Judiciary should be sensitive to the pitiable condition in which our countrymen are surviving. Therefore, every endeavor 4 should be made for ameliorating the conditions of the claimants, instead of creating obstacles for them. The mechanical dismissal of such application is adding to the burden of this Court. It is hoped that the Judicial Officers would treat this issue sensitively rather than pedantically, technically or arbitrarily. With these observation, this writ petition is, hereby, allowed and the order dated 26.03.2009 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. A copy of this judgment should be circulated to the MACTs functioning in Rajasthan. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-