w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bIeShn Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. \r' i^., 7.V- W.P.(ClNo.77of2010 Sanju Goswami Vs. , Ahmad Ali ORDER Post for Order.20/01 /2010 [! ' - I •i. Sd/- 1 tsunil KumarSinha Judge ^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH.BiLASPUR ^ ^ Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENT W.P.(C)No.77of2010 Sanju Goswami S/o Shri Ambikeshwar Goswami, age about 28 years, R/o Dhanlaxmi Nagar Bhanpuri, Post- Birgaon, Thaha- Khamtarai, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Versus Ahmad Ali S/o Yakub Ali Owner of ASA Engineering Dhanlaxmi Nagar Bhanpuri, Post- Birgaon, Thana - Khamtarai, Distt.- Rajpur(C.G.) (WritPetition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) '\ / •h'ifc1- 1 l:1 ADDearance: Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate forthe petitioner. None for the respondent. ORDER (20.01.2010) Following order of the Court was delivered Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. by (1) Petitioner, Sanju Goswami, has filed this petitionchallenging the legality, validity and propriety.ofthe order dated 16.10.2008 passed in Claim Case No. 11/B/110/2008/WC Act/non-fatal by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referredto the Commissioner), whereby the said authority^has djrected for fjxing the amount of Rs. 1 5,000/-, 15,000/- in two fixed deposits for 1 year and 2 years respectively. ^ ! (:--• (.... w^: rk. W.P.('ONo.77of2010 (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The petitioner filed a Claim Petition under Workmen's Compensation Act for awarding compensation on account of personal injuries sustained by him during the coyrse of his employmenton 17.8.2001. The said Claim Petition was allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated 17.1.2007 and it was d irected that the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,92,828/- as compensation to the petitioner within 45 days fromthe date ofthe order.It appears thatout of the sald amount of Rs.2,92,828/-, Rs.50,000/- was deposited by the respondent with the Commissioner. The petitioner filed an appljcation for releasing the said amount. The Commissioner directed that out ofRs.50,000/-, Rs.20,000/- should be deposited in Savings Account of the petitioher and the remaining amount of j Rs.30,000/- would be invested in 2 fixed4epoSitsofRs.15,000/-each,onefor 1 yearand other for the 2years. (3) Mr. S.P. Kale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the petitioner's left hand was badly damage in tlie accident which occurred on 17.8.2001. He contested the claim and thereafter the aforesaid amount of 2, 92,828/- wasawarded in favourof the petitioner out of which only Rs.50,000/- was deposited by the respondent and Rs.30,000/- has been directed to be kept in the fixed depositwhich is causing great hardship to the petitioner. In the facts ahd circumstancesof the case, theentire amount should have been released in favour ofthe petitioner so as to cater hisneeds to some extent. (4) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the records of the wri^ petition. v'- W.P.fQNo.77of2010 y\ (5) Admittedly, this is not a death case and the amount of compensation to be disbursed in favourofthedependent of the deceased workmen. Present isa case of personal injury which wassustained bythe petitioner on his left hand. The amount of Rs.50,000/- is a meager fraction ofthe total amount awarded to the petitibner by the Commissioner. It has been argued that the petitioner is in need of such amount. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Commissioner ought to have released theentire amount of Rs.50,000/-in favour of the petitioner so that it may be useful for him at the time of his hardship and it would also serve interest ofjustice. (6) For the foregoing reasons, the writpetition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure-P/1) is quashed. The Commissioner is directed torelease theentire amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioner by directing to deposit the same in his Savings BankAccount, instead of investing the same in the fixed deposits as contained in the impugned order. (7) There shall be noorder as to cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti