r' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR ®;. W U) CrVIL REVISION N0. APPLICANT 'H^TIFF !?ESPONDENTS Vs. l.// a. 3. ,y 4, 5. /2005 Smt. Shanta Bai Aged about 25 yrs. Wd/o Late Suresh Kumar Sen R/o VSlage Ramsagarpara, Kasdol District - Raipur (C.G.) Kamal Kishor S/o Punau Ram Ajgalle, Aged about 25 Yrs. R/o Sirpur Road, Kasdol District - Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicle) Tuneshwar Prasad Ajgalle S/o Punau Ram Ajgalle, Aged about........... Yrs. R/o Sirpur Road, Kasdol District - Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicle) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Braach Offiee - Bajrang Market, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) Mani Ram S/o Ramji Sen Aged about 50 Yrs. Shyam Bai W/o Maai Ram Sen Aged about ^5!.. years Respondent No. 4 and 5 Resident ofVillage - Nawagarh P.S. - Shivarinarayan District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) MEMO OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE . XI-HC-22 sn^f^ii •f^iJcl? 3Ii^?[ s^+iisb ^fiicf F ^ •g^ ^IFTRPl, dTllti'16, f«liriiy;i< MWW ^ifflSK_c£...L2; ai^r^gtWBftg 2.12.2005: Shri virendra Sharma learne|dcounsel for the applicant. Heard. The appticant has preferrec( dated 17.6.2005 passed by learn^ Tribunal, Baloda Bazar in Claith application for release of Rs. 5^, applicant towards the compensatio|i fixefcl Learned counsel for the preferred a claim petition which 1 Tribunal and a sum of Rs. 4,69,5( out of the said awarded sum Rs; 3| in the fixed deposit account of the| directed to be deposited in the 5 and the remaining amount was applic^nt and respondents 4 anc| 23,168/- have been paid to the during the pendency of the claim (| not paid to the applicantand in may be directed to release the applicant. - <Oi*(fo41'T:'Wf^T^ 'ft^ ^fa^K ^ aiPaiT'aii^t this revision petition against the order d II Additional Motor Accident Claims Case Np. 18/2004 bywhieh the i.OOO/- from the fixed deposit df the awarded toher has been rejected. ste/- |applicant .submits that the applicant was allowed by the leamed Claims ,5C2/- was awardedtothe claimants ahd i,00,OCX)/- Were directed to be deposlted lapplicant whereas Rs. 1,00,000/- were deposit account of respondents 4 and Idirected to be disbursed in cash to the 5 and as a result of which only Rs. artplicant in cash: He further submits that roceedings even the interim award was vi^w Of above he prays that the trjal Court arfiount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the [^r^TfS^ XI-HC-22 sn^r'^i •i^'iRi'sn^i %t(re"Hftg '3^? '•^mRTO. '®€taTIS.faill'My q^feqtt lIFTOf 4 fezt •(fsreeR ^; •BPgT STi^I After hearing learned consideration»thefacts and the applicant be permitted to awarded sum deposited in the The revision petition thuss coUnsel fix^d for the applicant and taking into circuijnstances of the case, it is directed that wiftidraw a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the deposit account qf the applicant. (ands disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ——'-A^-s^- f