1 Civil Revision No. 3744 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Revision No. 3744 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.10.2009 Parmeshwari Devi --- Petitioner Versus The New India Assurance Company Limited --- Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL *** PRESENT: Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rinki Jha, Advocate, for the respondent. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J The present revision petition has been filed by the claimant seeking modification of the order dated 30.3.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (in short “the Tribunal”), whereby she was permitted to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- only, out of the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,29,224/-. As per the facts on record, the Tribunal vide award dated 1.11.2008 awarded an amount of Rs. 3,29,224/- as compensation for the death of Ram Diya, husband of the petitioner, who had died in a motor vehicular accident,. The Tribunal also ordered that the amount of compensation awarded under the said award be deposited in some Nationalised Bank, in the shape of fixed deposit receipt. It is stated that the petitioner is a poor lady and after losing the only earning 2 Civil Revision No. 3744 of 2009 member of the family, i.e. her husband Ram Diya, in the accident, she has no source of income and, thus, for establishing some business, she is in need of money. An application was made by her before the Tribunal for release of the amount of compensation lying deposited in the bank. The Tribunal, however, partially accepted prayer of the petitioner and ordered the release of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only, vide order dated 30.3.2009. It is how the petitioner has approached this Court now through this petition for release of the entire amount of the compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amount ordered to be released by the Tribunal is very small and is not adequate for establishing any domestic business. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an old aged lady who requires the entire amount for medicines and livelihood. The counsel next submitted that in similar circumstances, the apex Court, in H.S. Ahammed Hussain Versus Irfan Ahammed, A.I.R. 2002 SC 2483 had ordered the release of the entire amount of compensation and, thus, the petitioner herein, who is in dire need of money, be bestowed with the same concession. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- New India Assurance Company Limited stated that the Insurance Company has no objection to the release of the entire amount of the compensation in favour of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Supreme Court, in H.S. Ahammed Hussain’s case (supra), has held as under: 3 Civil Revision No. 3744 of 2009 “8. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that the amount of compensation payable to mothers of the victims should not have been directed to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the mothers should not be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. In case the amounts have not been already invested, the same shall be paid to the mothers, but if, however, invested by depositing the same in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, there may be its premature withdrawal in case the parties so intend.” In the present case, as already noticed, the petitioner is a widow. She is an old lady and has no source of income to keep her soul and body together as averred in the petition. It is further claimed that the petitioner intends to start some business so as to enable her to earn some livelihood to keep pace with her remaining life. The only idea behind keeping the amount of compensation in bank was to safeguard the interest of the claimant and to diminish the chances of the amount being squandered away or used for any other oblique purpose. Here a widow is asking for the payment of the full amount of compensation and that too, for a good purpose, i.e. to start some business enabling her to earn something and sustain her life. Moreover, the other side, i.e. the Insurance Company, has also no objection to the release of the entire amount in favour of the petitioner. 4 Civil Revision No. 3744 of 2009 In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated 30.3.2009 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner-Parmeshwari Devi is allowed to receive the entire amount of compensation awarded to her. If the amount is lying deposited in the bank as directed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same prematurely from the bank and if the amount has not been invested in the bank and is still lying deposited with the Tribunal, as indicated in para 2 of the impugned order, the same shall be immediately released to her in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) October 28, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*