CR No.6661 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6661 of 2006 Date of Decision: 18.08.2009 Ashok Kumar ..Petitioner Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.J.P.Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short the Tribunal) vide which application moved by the petitioner for the release of FDR amount, has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner was granted compensation by the Tribunal for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. The amount of compensation was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit with liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the interest accrued thereon. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for release of amount on the plea that he had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty CR No.6661 of 2006 2 thousand only) from one Mahipal Singh for the purpose of his treatment which is to be repaid. Learned Tribunal dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that he had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from Mahipal Singh. The learned Tribunal found that in the absence of any document it could not be accepted that he would be advanced loan. Thus, the learned Tribunal found that the reasons given for withdrawal of amount was not justified. Learned Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keral State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sushma Thomas, 1994 (2) PLR 1 and Lilaben Udesing Gohel Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 (3) PLR 328, dismissed the application. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lilaben Udesing Gohel Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) was pleased to lay down as under:- “ Before we part we must observe that even though the guidelines laid down in Muljibai's case have been approved and applied by this court in the aforementioned two cases, many Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and even some of the High Courts in other parts of the country do not follow them. We do hope that the courts/Tribunal in the country will not succumb to the temptation of permitting huge withdrawals in the hope of disposing of the claim. We are sure that the CR No.6661 of 2006 3 Courts/Tribunals will realize their duty towards the victims of the accident so that the large part of the compensation amount is not lost to them. The very purpose of laying down the guidelines was to ensure the safety of the amount so that the claimants do not become victim of unscrupulous person and unethical agreements or arrangements. We do hope our anxiety to protect the claimants from exploitation by such elements will be equally shared by the courts/Tribunal.” The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being adult is entitled to get money released as the same is needed by him urgently. This plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition the same is ordered to be dismissed. However, this order shall not debar the petitioner to seek release on future date if genuine need arises. 18.08. 2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge