CW 3561/10 //1// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3561/2010 Smt. Magan Kanwar Versus Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.7 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur DATE OF ORDER : 16/04/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr.Deepak Singh Mehta, for petitioner. The widow has approached this Court assailing the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejecting her application for premature release of the FDRs of Rs. Two Lacs vide order dt. 27/11/2009. The petitioner's husband died in the accident and claim petition was filed which was allowed and an award to the tune of Rs. 5,79,177/- was passed - out of which, Rs.1,24,171/- were deposited in saving bank account which was available for utilization at her own disposal and for balance amount, the Tribunal directed to keep in fixed deposits for ten years under monthly income scheme. It appears that earlier also an application was filed by petitioner for premature release of FDRs on the ground of her own illness, which was rejected by the Tribunal on 19/01/2009 against which CWP- 6238/2008 was preferred in which while passing CW 3561/10 //2// a detailed order on 09/07/2008, co-ordinate Bench observed that the practise has been developed with the Counsel appearing in claim cases before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals which some times has been described as “ambulance chasers”; and the Court considered it appropriate to call upon the Bar Council of Rajasthan to assist the Court in the matter. However, pending earlier writ petition, petitioner filed fresh application on the premises that her brother in-law needs medical assistance for which she required pre-mature release of FDR of Rs.Two lacs, which has been rejected by Tribunal vide order dt.27/11/2009. At this stage, this Court would like to observe that petitioner alongwith her two minor children are dependent upon compensation and there appears to be no other source of livelihood atleast for the children except the compensation awarded and the petitioner goes on changing her stand for one reason or the other for release of FDRs. Taking note of the circumstances having been brought on record, this Court does not find any error being committed by Tribunal in rejecting her application vide order impugned. Consequently, writ petition is without substance and is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI],J. K.Khatri/Raghu/p.2/ 3561CW2010Apr16-MACT.doc