IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.443 of 2010 Date of decision: 7.4.2010 Smt. Sushila ......Petitioner(s) Versus Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, District Mohindergarh, Haryana ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) As per the averments made in this petition, Naresh Kumar, husband of the petitioner had died in a motor vehicular accident. In a claim petition bearing No.66 of 2007 which was decided on 29.5.2009, a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum was awarded to the claimants including the petitioner and the petitioner was held entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards her share. While disposing of the claim petition, the Tribunal had ordered disbursement of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner in cash and to deposit the remaining amount of her share in a Nationalized Bank by way of FDR for a period of 5 years. According to the petitioner, New India Assurance Company deposited a sum of Rs.1,84,328/- in the shape of FDR No.516622 dated 8.10.2009 with the State Bank of Patiala, Court Branch, Narnaul. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court seeking to withdraw the aforesaid amount which has been kept in FDR on the ground that the aforesaid amount is needed by her to get the residential house repaired. However, the aforesaid request of the petitioner was declined by the MACT, Narnaul vide impugned order dated 5.12.2009 CR No.443 of 2010 -2- observing that the application was not bona fide. Challenging the aforesaid order, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended before this Court that the amount of compensation is meant for the petitioner and in the interest of justice, the same should be ordered to be released to the petitioner as she is in dire need of the same. Vide order dated 22.1.2010, the petitioner was directed to be present in this Court on 25.2.2010 to verify the bonafide need. On 25.2.2010, the petitioner was present in Court, however, she was unable to say anything. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- already disbursed to her has been spent by her and now, the withdrawal of the remaining amount is sought on the ground that the same is needed to repair the residential house. Admittedly, the house which is sought to be repaired, belongs to her father-in-law. In view of this fact, this Court is not inclined to release the aforesaid amount as it seems that the effort is only to spend the money which has been awarded by way of compensation to the petitioner on account of the death of her husband, whereas, if the aforesaid amount is kept in the FDR, the petitioner will be earning some interest which can be of some use to her for her daily living. Dismissed. April 7, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE