HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON f227) No. 470 of2009 PETmONERS : 1. Mus. Urmila Devi, aged about 53 years, widow ofDeeiianath Siiigti. 2. Ku. Pinki Singh, aged about 17 years, D/o Late Deenanath Singlz iiiinor tlirougli - natural guardian mother Mus. Urmila Devi. 3. Dhirendra Singli, aged about 23 years, son of Late Deenanath Singh. 4. Jitendra Kumar Sitigti, aged about 26 yeai-s, son ofLate Deenanath Singh. All ai-e R//o Qtr. No. B-112, Charcha Distt. Korea (C.G.) Presently resided at Saikanda, Near Shiv Mandir, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) \irERSUS RE8PONDE^TTS : 1. Anil Kumar son ofNarmada Prasad aged not kiiown to the petitioner, R//o vill & PS Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Asliraf Ali so of S.K.Ali, aged not kiiown to the petitioner, R/o Near "Dhaan Mandi" Buddha Mahadev Nagar, Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lembard G.I.C. Ltd. Near CMD College- Link Road, Bilaspur- Distt. Bilaspur (CG) WRIT PET1TION LTNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SBLHon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri. J. Present: Smt. Bhag\vati Kashyap, Advocate for the petitionei's. ORALORDER (Passed on 27"1 day of January, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P/4) passed by 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Bilaspur, in C.T. M.J.C. No. 25/2008, whereby the application for withdrawal of the amount of F.D.R. witfi interest, has been rejected. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Deenanath Singh, who died in a motor accident on 03.06.2006. The petitioners filed a claim case being No. 47/2006 fbr grant of compensation. The leamed Tribunal, vide award dated 09.05.2007 (Annexure P/l), awarded a sum of Rs. 16,41,520.00 (Rs. Sixteen Lacs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred & Twenty Only), with interest at the rate ofsix percent per annum. Learaed Tribunal directed for payment of 25% of the amount out of the total amouiit of ':^^ % %^-'^"' Amit compensation and remaining 25% and 50% was directed to be kept in fixed deposit scheine for 5 years and 10 years respectively, in any nationalized bank. It was further directed that on the said amount no loan etc. shall be taken nor any payment before the maturity peripd shall be made. Ifrequired, quarterly or half-yearly interestmay be granted. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application before the claims Tribunal for releasing the share ofpetitioner No. 3 i.e. Rs. 2J9,691/" and Rs. 1,09.845/- in cash on the ground ofmarriage ofpetitioner No. 3, which is going to be held on 14th Febmary, 2009. Leamed claims Tribunal, vide order dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P/4) rejected the application of the petitioners observing tiiat the said amount was directed to be deposited for the subsistence purpose. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition for release ofthe aforesaid amount ofRs. 2,19,69V- and Rs. 1,09,845/- respectively. The amount so deposited was for subsistence ofthepetitioners who are the legal heirs ofthe deceased. Ifthe entire money is released, there is no guarantee that the same would be used for subsistence purpose. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners and having gone through the documente appended thereto, I do not find any reason to interfere with or modify the impugned order dated 19.12.2008 (.^nnexure P/4). It should not be permitted by this Court as it is statutory requirement to keep major portion of tiie amount awarded in fixed deposit for specified period, may be for five years or ten years. Bven if the petitioners want to get the award dated 09.05.2007 (Annexure P/l) modified. the petitioners may approach appropriate Court. It is well-nigh established that this Court in exercise ofits super^isory jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndiashouldrefram itselffrom interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where per^ersity, illegality or jurisdictional en'or is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. In view ofthe foregoing, there is no merit m this petition and the same is dismissed. — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge