1 SBCWP No.4530/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4530/2009 Govind Singh @ Heera Ram Vs. Union Bank of India & Anr. Date of Order : : 20/05/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.M.R.Singh for Dr.Pushpendra Singh Bhati, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: By an application being IA No.8321/2009, the petitioner seeks to implead the Judge, M.A.C.T., Udaipur as party respondent in the writ petition. 2 SBCWP No.4530/2009 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the application is allowed. The Judge, M.A.C.T., Udaipur is impleaded as party respondent in the matter. Amended cause title has already been filed, same may be placed at appropriate place in the file. Learned counsel has also placed on record the award dated 31st January, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, which may also be taken on record. No relief has been prayed by petitioner against the respondents-Union of India and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and therefore, no need to issue notices to these respondents. The notice of respondent No.3, the Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, the authority being persona designata, is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that by award dated 31st January, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (for short “the Tribunal” hereafter), a sum of Rs.66,800/- was awarded as compensation on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988” hereinafter). However, the petitioner having dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation filed an appeal 3 SBCWP No.4530/2009 before this Court being S.B.Civil Misc.Appeal No.281/2002 which came to be allowed partly by judgment dated 22nd August, 2008 and the amount of compensation was enhanced from Rs.66,800/- to Rs.1,25,000/-. In compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 22th August, 2008 , the respondent-Insurance Company deposited the amount before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal instead of disbursing the entire amount to the petitioner-claimant, by order impugned dated 22nd January, 2009 directed to deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- in three FDR of Rs.20,000/- each for a period of 2, 3 and 5 years respectively. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is old person and the condition directing to deposit the amount of Rs.60,000/- in Fixed Deposit Receipt out of the total amount of compensation, is onerous one. In my view, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to move before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, if the petitioner seeks to withdraw the amount of FDR, with the reasons for such withdrawal and if such an application is filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall consider and decide the same keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is old person and amount deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipt is 4 SBCWP No.4530/2009 property of the petitioner keeping in view the decision of this Court in Bhanwari Devi Vs. Union of India, 2004 Rrajasthan Accident Reporter 464. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (H.R. PANWAR), J. NK