HK3HGOURTOF GHUMTISQARH • BtLftSPUR WRITPETITION 12Z^Ho 6370of2008 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. Praveen Kumar S/o. Kalichand Jha, aged about 23 years. 2. Smt. Nirmala Devi. w/o. Late KaHchand, ageet about 45 years. 3. Smt. Jagat Tarini. W/o. Late Harish Ch8nd Jha. All of R/o. Q.No.DMQ-38. Vishrampur. DisSt. Surguja (CG). Versus 1. Mahinath Sjngh. S/o. Prem Singh Gond. GCGUpEstion — Driver, R/o. Til Siva, P.S; Surajpur. Distt. Surguja (CG). 2. Sabjr Ahmad. S.E.C.L. Chirmiri. 3. General Manager, S.E.C.L. Chirmiri. 4. M.P. State though Coliector Surguja. 5. Chunav Election Commission, Ambikapur, for EJeotion st Ahad, Govt of India. New Deihi. 6. The Oriental Insurance Company Limjted through Divisional Manager 124 Napier Town. Jabalpur (MP). (Writ petition under Artide 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnJhotri.J. Present:- Shri Vineet K. Pandey, counsel for the petitioners. GRAL ORDER (Passed on this 5th day of February, 2009) By this petition, the petitioners seek tochallenge the order dated 12-2-2008 (Annexure-P/2) passed by th©1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Ambikapur. Dist. Sarguja, whereby an application filed by the petitioners for releasing the compensation amount of Rs.4.35.833/-, was rejected. 2) The brief facts. in nutshell. as projected by the petitioners. are that the husband of the petitioner No.2 died in an accident for which she filed a ciaim petltion before the Claims Tribunal whereby an amount :r1 -2 Rgju of Rs.4.35,833/- was awarded in favour of the petitioners and it was directed that same to be deposited in the form of fixed deposit for five years with condition that on depositmg the amount the petitioners would not get loan from that and only get the jnterest time to time. Thereafter. the petitioners made an application before the Tribunat for reiease of Rs.4.35.833/- for their personal use. The Tribunal rejected the application ofthe petitioners. Thus, this petition. 4) Be that as it may, the Tribunal after having consideredthe facts situation of the case came to the conclusion that the amount kept in the fixeci deposit for a certain period was not to meet out day-to-day IXpenses. but for different purposes. For day-to-day expenses, the petitioners cannot withdraw the award amount kept in fixed deposjt. Accordingly. the application filed by the petitioners was rejected. 5) I have heard learned counset appearing for the petitioners, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioners without showing any suffident and cogent reasons fiied the applicatjon forwithdrawal ofthe compensation amount, Thus. pert^itting to withdraw all the amount jn one go would not serve the purpose of compensation. Thus, the application ofthe petitioners to withdraw Rs.4.35,833^- was rightly rejected by the court below. Thus, the order dated 12-2-2008 (Annexure-P/2) 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 India should refrain itselffrom interfering with w order passed by the Court below. except in such cases where perversity, illegality. irreguiarity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which js not in the present case. 7) In view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition js dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge