IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1618 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.3.2009 Jagmati and others ......Petitioners Versus Rajender Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Bairagi, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) By way of this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.2.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar whereby application for liquidation of FDRs No.0372294 and 0372298 and release of the aforesaid amount to petitioner No.1 on behalf of the minors i.e. petitioners No.2 and 3 has been rejected. As per the averments made in the petition, a sum of Rs.95,535/- was ordered to be kept in the aforesaid FDRs on behalf of each minor which was received by them as compensation on account of death of their father in a motor vehicular accident by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal. It has been further averred by the petitioners that mother of the minors (petitioner No.1) in order to protect their interest, entered into an agreement to purchase a plot measuring 180 sq.yards for a total consideration of Rs.2,27,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.27,000/- as an earnest money to the vendor while the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was to be given on 2.3.2009 at the time of registration of the sale deed. However, due to paucity of funds with the petitioners, they were not in a position to get the sale deed executed qua the aforesaid plot and CR No.1618 of 2009 -2- therefore, got the time extended for registration of the sale deed. In these circumstances, the petitioners moved an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for liquidation of the aforesaid FDRs and release of amount to them so that the same could be utilized for purchase of the aforesaid plot in furtherance of the aforesaid agreement to sell. Application filed by the petitioners was rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar vide impugned order observing that the interest of the minors was involved in the case and therefore, it was necessary to get permission from the Court of competent jurisdiction before release of the aforesaid amount in favour of the petitioners, which had not been sought. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no dispute with the fact that before entering into an agreement on behalf of the petitioners No.2 and 3, petitioner No.1 had not sought any permission from the Court of competent jurisdiction to use the property/amount of the minors. Even the agreement on behalf of the minors executed by petitioner No.1 may not be legal and enforceable. The condition of keeping the compensation in FDRs as ordered by the Tribunal is not challenged by the petitioners. Thus, I find no fault in the observations made in the impugned order. Dismissed. March 24, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE