HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : Bi ASPUR \ WRIT PETITION IAI't‘227! No.126 of 2009 Smt. Begum Bee, widow of Shri Béhar Khan Muslaman, aged about 45 years, R/o.Smt. Quaresha Begum. Pampara. Korba (CG). Versus WEE on-agglicants 1. Subhash Ramashish Chandra Prasad, aged Prasad, about Slo. 30 years, Rlo. Camp No.2. Fish Market, Power House Road. Bhilai, District Durg (CG). 2. Mohd. Suban. Slo. Mohd. Israil, R/o. Power House. Bhi‘ai, presently, R/o. Shankar Nagar. Raipur (CG). 3. The New mdia msurance Company. through Branch Manager, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present :- Shri S.R.J.Jaiswai. couneei for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 12‘“ day or January, 2009) By this petition. the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 1-1 0-2008 (Annexure-PH) passed by the 2““ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Fast Track Court, Korba, whereby an application tiied by the petitioner for releasing the compensation amount of Rs.1 .60,000I- for construction of the house, was reiected. 2) The brief éts,inhutsheil, as projected by this petition are that the husband of the petitioner died in an accident for which she‘tiled a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, whereby an amount of Rs.2.85.000/‘ was awarded in favour of the petitioner and it was directed to make payment of Rs.35,000l— to the petitioner and the rest of the amount i.e.. 2.50.0001- to be deposited in the form of fixed deposit for Rs.25,000l— each for aterm of 2, 4. 6. 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 & 20 years. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the Tribunal for release‘of‘RsJ ,60,000/- for construction of the house. The Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner. Thus. this petition. \\ N. 4) Be that as it may. the Tribunal after having considered the facts situation of the case‘ came to the conctusion that the amount kept in the fixed deposit for a peried of twenty years was net to meet out day-to-day expenses, but for different purposes. For day-to-day expenses. the petitioner cannot withdraw the award amount kept in hxed deposit. Accordingiy. the application med by the‘petitioner was rejected. 5) i have heard learned counsei appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that the compensationto the tune of Rs.35.000/- was granted to the petitioner immediately. The remaining amount was put in a fixed deposit for different periods. lt was put in such a manner that the petitioner was able to take out Rs.25,000/- after completion of two years, thereafter, again after completion of two years up to the age of '20 years. Thus, permitting to withdraw atl the amount in one go would not serve the purpose of compensation. It was not one time compensation, but for 20 years. Thus, the application of the petitioner to withdraw Rs.1,60,000f— was rightly rejected by the court below. Thus, the order dated 1-10-2008 (Annexure-PH) is unexceptionable, just & proper and does not warrant any interference. 6) This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court beiow, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity orjurisdictionai error is writ iarge on the face of the record. which is not in the present case. 7) ln view of the foregoingJeasons, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, l.A.Nofstands"disposed of. /§J/ ‘l 1mg? , \\ ll ii satish K. AgniWm ll