^ IN THB HIGH COUR'r OF CHHAW1SGAKH : B1LASPUR Writ Petition ( Q No. 732 of 2008 Petitioner Smt Parwati Thakur, aged 49 years, wite of late Shn Laxznaa Thalair, resident of GaU No.7, TeUbaiidha, Raipur, Tehsil & Distdct Raipxu' (Chhattisgarh). (Claimaat) Versus Respondent XIVth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tnbunal, Raipur (C.G.) WmT_PmjT!ON_UNDERARfl^^ (SB: Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Somnath Verxna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Paael Lawyer fbr the respondent, Q^D^J? ( Passed on this 5th Day ofJanuaiy, 2009) The petitioner has filed fhis petition seekiag modifiteation of fhe award dated 7,1.2008 (Annexurc P/5), passed by fhe Fourffa Additional Motor Accident Clamis Tribunal, Raipur in M.J.C. No. 45/2007 and a direction to release ttie amount of Rs. 1,60,076/-, lyiug ia fixed deposit ia fhe Oriental Baak of Cosimerce ie. T.D,R, No.0608537. The facts, ia nutshell, are that ttie petitioner (laiofliex^ had filed a Clami Case No. 81/2006 for graat of compensation, as her son died iu an accident on 5.6.2005. Vide award dated 19.4.2006, passed by the leamed Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claitas Tribuiial, Kaipur a total compensation of Rs, 2,26,200/~ (I'wo Lacs, 'l'wenly Six Thousand, 'I'wo Hundred), wifh 9% smiple interest, was awarded, Learaed 'l nbunal directed Ibr payment of 25% of the amount, out of the total aoiount of conipensation aad reinainiag 75% araount was directed to be kept ia fixed deposit scheme for five years in any nationalized Baak, Thereafter, ftie petitioner filed aa application betbre the CIaiois Tribiinal for release of Rs, 1,60,076/- in cash on the groimd that she has to take sonie niedical toreatuient aad undei^o operation of uterus, She also wants to spent money ia mardage ofher younger son namely Vikash Thakur. .^ ^" 8. ^) ThaJair Learaed Clamxs 'I'nbunal, haviag considered tiie facte aad circuiastaaces aad that on earMer two occasions i.e, by order dated 28.8.2006 passed in M.J.C. No. 19/2006 Rs. 10,000/- aad by oider dated 23.7.2007 passed in M.J.C. No. 11/2007 Rs. 10.000/- were graated to fhe petitioner, dectmed to release the whole sum prayed ibr by the petitioner. However, fbr fhe purpose of marriage of ftie son of fhe petitioner, learaed Tribunal directed for release of Rs, 15,000/- vide order dated 7.1.2008 (Annexiirc P/5). Beiag aggrieved fhe petitioner has filed fhis petition for releaseof Rs. 1,60,076/-. The amoiint so deposited was for subsistence of the petitioner, who is mofhier of fhe deceased. If fhe entire money is released, fhere is no guaraatee that the same would be used ibr subsistence purpose, particularly ia view of fhe tact fliat at fhe JSrst instaace 25% of fhe total sum aad ffaereafter Rs. 10,000/- (total Ks, 20,000/-) were released twice and now by the impugned order dated 7.1,2008 leamed 'I'ribunal also directed for release of Rs. 15,000/- to ftie petitioner. Haviag heard learaed counsel appearuig for fhe petitioiier aiid haviag gone through fh.e docuinents appended flhLereto, I do not fiiid any reason to iatertere wifti or inodify ftie impugned order dated 7,1.2008, It should not be pennitted by fliis Court as It is statutory requirexnent to keep niajor porfcion of the amount awarded ia fixed deposit for specifed period, may be fbr tfaree years or five years, Even if', flie petitioner waats to get fhe award dated 19,4.2006 inodi&ed, fhe petitioner miay approach appropriate Court. It is well-nigh estabUshed fhat this Court m exeax^ise of its supervisory junsdiction under Article 227 of the Coiistitution of India should rcfrain itselt Ironi uiterfenng wifh tiie order passed by fhe Courts below, except ia such cases where peryersity, illegatity, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on ttoe face of ffcie record^ which is not ia ttie present case, In view of ftie foregoing, fhere is no merit ia fhis petidoa aad the sanie is dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrl Judge