C.R. No. 374 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 374 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: January 15, 2009 Gafuri @ Gafoori .. Petitioner v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 and 5. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No. 6. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the revision petition is to the order dated 27.8.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, `the Tribunal), whereby an application filed by the petitioner-application for issuing payment voucher to the extent it directed deposit of 75% of the compensation in a fixed deposit, has been rejected. A perusal of the award shows that the petitioner filed the claim petition for compensation on account of the injuries suffered by her in a road accident. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. After deposit of the awarded amount, the Tribunal directed 75% of the amount to be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of three years. The petitioner filed an application for release of the amount of the FDR. The Tribunal has rejected this application. The petitioner mentioned in the application that she had spent a lot of money on her treatment like medicines, hospitalisation and transportation. She had spent the said amount after borrowing the same from her relatives and she required the amount for discharging the said debts. I fail to understand how the Tribunal while awarding the compensation for the injuries to the petitioner directed to deposit of amount in fixed deposit. The Tribunal has no such jurisdiction in a case where the claimant is major. The condition incorporated by the Tribunal is C.R. No. 374 of 2008 [2] uncalled for. The petitioner, who is major, has every right to utilize the amount in any manner, she likes, in cases where the amount awarded is on account of injuries suffered. . In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the application of the petitioner for release of amount kept in FDR is allowed. The bank is directed to release the amount to the petitioner on premature encashment of the FDR, if approached. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.1.2009 mk