CM Nos.2359 & 2360-CII-2010 and - 1 - CR No.2846 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM Nos.2359 & 2360-CII-2010 and CR No.2846 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 03.02.2010. **** Smt. Sukhwant Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. National Insurance Company Limited and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) CM Nos.2359 & 2360-CII-2010 Allowed as prayed for. CR No.2846 of 2009 (O&M) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.3.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (Annexure P-2) whereby, petition filed by the petitioner for liquidating the Fixed Deposit receipt No.331559 dated 22.2.2008 lying in State Bank of India, Mini Secretariat, Kurukshetra along with interest was partly allowed.. CM Nos.2359 & 2360-CII-2010 and - 2 - CR No.2846 of 2009 (O&M) Brief facts of the case are that in an accident dated 11.4.2006 Tarlok Singh, husband of the petitioner, died and a claim petition was filed under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), which was allowed by the Tribunal vide its Award dated 23.11.2007 with the following relief: “As a sequel of my above discussion, present petition is accepted with costs. A sum of Rs.490000/- is awarded as compensation to claimant Sukhwant Kaur, widow of Tarlok Singh, which shall be payable by respondent No.1 being driver (Mark R1) and respondent No.2 being owner (Mark R2) and respondent No.4 being insurer (Ex.R3) of Car No.HR- 07D-5294 jointly and severally alongwith interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization. In this case, claimants are widow and two sons of Tarlok Singh, deceased, who are of the age of 26 years and 23 years. Both these sons are major and they were not dependent upon the income of deceased as admitted by PW1 Smt. Sukhwant Kaur in her cross examination. So both these sons are not entitled to receive any amount of compensation and Smt. Sukhwant Kaur, PW1 is only entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation. On realization, a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid-in-cash to her to tide over the financial crisis and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Suraj Bhan Versus Sat Pal Singh and others 1997(3) PLR 78 (SC) remaining amount of her share together with interest shall be deposited in her name in a fixed deposit scheme of any nationalized bank fetching maximum interest for a period of three years. Rs.550/- each is fixed as counsel fee. Memo of costs be drawn accordingly and file be consigned to records” CM Nos.2359 & 2360-CII-2010 and - 3 - CR No.2846 of 2009 (O&M) It is submitted that in terms of the aforesaid order an amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner was deposited in the Fixed Deposit vide receipt No.331559 dated 22.2.2008 in State Bank of India, Mini Secretariat, Kurukshetra. Petitioner filed an application seeking permission of the Tribunal for the release of amount on the ground that she required money for purchase of a house. The said application was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.1 lac was ordered to be released to the petitioner. During the pendency of this revision, by virtue of an application, namely, CM. No.2360-CII-2010, agreement to sell dated 25.1.2009 has also been placed on record. The said application has been allowed by order of an even date and the agreement to sell has been taken on record. I have perused the agreement to sell. According to this agreement to sell, petitioner has sought to purchase land measuring 135 Square Yards for a sale consideration of Rs.6,15,000/- against which a sum of Rs.1 lac has already been paid as earnest money. The date of the execution of sale deed was further extended by mutual consent of the parties and at that time another sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the vendor. It is submitted that now again the date has been extended to 5.2.2010 as it is evident from an endorsement on the agreement to sell. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have found that the petitioner appears to be in genuine need of money and if she does not make the balance payment then in terms of the agreement, earnest money, which has already been paid to the vendor, shall be forfeited. CM Nos.2359 & 2360-CII-2010 and - 4 - CR No.2846 of 2009 (O&M) In view of the above, present Revision Petition is allowed. Order of the learned Court below is modified and it is directed that the entire amount, which has been deposited by way of Fixed Deposit receipt in the name of the petitioner shall be released to her forthwith along with interest, which has been accrued thereupon. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) February 03, 2010 JUDGE Vivek