'&^s^'t^ "^^^•^ % iff HJQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETJTION (227} N0. 6787 OF 2008 PETSTIONERS; CJaJrnant RESPONDENTS 1. Smt, Gopkuwar, W/o Late Ratanial, aged about 42 years, 2. Mela Ram, S/o late Shri RatanlaS, aged about 13 years (Now aged about 18 years). 3. Ku. Meena, D/o Late Shri Ratanlal, aged about 10 years (Minor). Petitioners No.2 & 3 through natural guardian mother Smt. Gopkuvvar, W/o .Late Ratanlal. AIS residents of vliiage Tundra, P.S. & Tah. BJSaigarh, Distt. Raipur (00). Versus 1. Rajendra Kumar Durandhar, S/o N.K. Dhurandhar, aged about 45 years, R/o Raja Talab, Raipur, Distt Raipur (CG). 2. Ramiz Ra^a, S/o Md. Abbas, aged not known, R/o Bombay Market, Mohdapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 3. The New (nsurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, The New insurance Company Limited, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). ^Vrit petition under Articte 227 ofthe Constitdtton of Inciia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Saflsh K. Agnihotri; .1. Present:- Shri S.K Guha, counsel for the petitloners. ORAL (Passed on this 4 day of December^ 2008) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 23-10-2008 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the 1 AdditJonal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, Rajpur. in M.J.C.No.33/2008 on the appHcation made by the petitjoner No.2 - Mela Ram to release a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, whieh was directed to be kept in the fixed depos'rt in the award dated 15-7-2008 (Anneure-P/3). 2) On perusal of the award, it appears that the petitioner No.2 Mela Ram was 13 years old at the time award passed The olaim petition - ^' was ftEed before the Tribunai foy Smt Gopkuwar, Metal Ram & Ku. Meena, who are wife, son and daughter, respectively, ofthe deceased namdy, Ratanial 3) Havlng considered al! the aspects the Tribunal,whjje passing the award, directed to keep a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the fixed deposit for a period of three years in the name of Smt. Gopkuwar and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Mela Ram anci a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- jn the name of Ku Meena in the fixed deposit for a period of seven years. Thereafter, the petltloner No.2 made an appiication before the TribunaJ for release of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was kept In the fixed deposit jn his name. on the ground that the petitioner No 2 ES unempioyed. 4) Be that as it may, the Tribunal after having considered the facts situation of the case came to the conclusion that the amount kept in the fixed deposit for a period of seven years was not to meet out day-to-day expenses, but for different purposes. For day-to-day expenses, the petitioner cannot wlthdraw the award amounf. The award was made in favour ofthe family members ofthe petitloner No.2, not in favour ofthe petitioner No.2 alone. Accorciingly, the application filed by the petitioner No.2 was rejected. 5) ! have heard learned counse? appearing for the petitioners, perusecE the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. On perusai of the order passed by the Tribunal, 1 do not find any error or Irregularity In the said order. Thus, the order dated 23-10-2008 (Annexure-P^I) is unexcepttonabSe. just 8? proper and does not warrant any interference. 6) This Court in exercise of its supervssory jurisdiction under Artjcle 227 of the Constitution of India shouid refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such eases where perversjty, illegaJity, irregularity or jurisdictionai ©rroris writ Jarge on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present oase. 7) Sn vjew of the foregoing reasons, this writ petitlon is dismjssecj. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge