Civil Revision No. 369 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 369 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.01.2009 Ayyub and another ...Petiitioners Versus Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwa1, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioners are parents of deceased Naem who died in the impugned accident and, on that account, a compensation for Rs.2,30,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal in their favour. The Tribunal further ordered that 25% of the amount of the awarded compensation shall be payable in cash; while the remaining amount shall be deposited in fixed deposit for a period of three years. The petitioners applied for the disbursement of the deposited 75% amount as well on a plea that they require money to pay the debt they had raised earlier at the time of solemnisation of marriage of their daughter in June, 2008. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, declined the plea by observing that they have not adduced any proof regarding the obtaining of loan at the time of marriage of the daughter in June, 2008. Civil Revision No. 369 of 2009 -2- **** The application in the context appeared to the MACT “to be a clever device to misutilise the entire compensation amount.” The parties are parents of the deceased and they are obviously majors. The solemnisation of marriage of a daughter is pious duty cast on the parents of a child. In this case, the petitioner lost their male child in the impugned accident. The money, is by all means, theirs. I see no reason to decline their request. This view is, even otherwise, supported by a judgment rendered by this court in Ashraf Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon and others 2007(3) PLR 692. In that case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:- “The Tribunal has no such jurisdiction in a case where the claimant is major. This condition incorporated by the Tribunal is unwarranted and uncalled for in the eyes of law. The Tribunal while rejecting the application of the petitioner for modification of the award recorded no reason. The claimant whois major has every right to utilize the amount in anyt manner, he likes. In view of the above circumstances, the order impugned is set aside and application of petitioner for release of award amount kept in F.D.R. Is allowed. Bank shall release the amount if approached.” The petition shall stand allowed in limine accordingly. January 22, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge