C.R. No. 2779 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 2779 of 2009 Date of decision: May 15, 2009 Babita and another ..Petitioners Versus Kuldip Singh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. A.S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioners. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.1.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal vide which application for withdrawal of the amount lying in Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of deceased Nikita(Minor) in favour of the petitioner has been rejected. As per the averments made in this revision petition, an award was passed on 14.12.2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal in MACT Case No. 78 of 2000 titled as Babita etc. Versus Kuldeep Singh etc. Out of the total compensation amount awarded, an amount of Rs. 1,22,122/- was deposited in fixed deposit account No. 710487 in Bank of Punjab Ltd. Karnal on 15.4.2002 for a period of 5 years in the name of baby Nikita (minor claimant) through her mother Babita, petitioner. Nikita (minor claimant) died on 6.9.2006. Petitioner claiming herself to be mother of Nikita, filed an application on 20.12.2008 for release of the amount of the aforesaid fixed deposit receipt lying deposited in the name of minor Nikita being only class-I legal heir of the aforesaid deceased. Vide impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the said application holding that the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims C.R. No. 2779 of 2009 2 Tribunal stood executed on payment of the compensation to the claimants as per award. The amount was deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipt to safeguard the interest of the minor as per the award of the Tribunal and was to be released to Nikita after she attains the age of majority and therefore, the amount cannot be released in favour of the mother unless she produces a succession certificate being legal heir of Nikita. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute that the amount lying deposited in the fixed deposit receipt in the name of Nikita was her estate which on the death of Nikita can devolve by way of inheritance upon the petitioner being class-I heir. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after satisfaction of the award had no jurisdiction to order the release of the amount in favour of the petitioner. To inherit the property of Nikita, petitioner is required to establish her right under Common Civil Law by obtaining a succession certificate as provided under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for receiving the amount in question. The Tribunal rightly rejected the prayer of petitioner as it was not competent to decide the succession of Nikita (minor claimant). Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. May 15, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE