SCA/17825/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17825 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= YOGESH MANGALDAS UPADHYAY - Petitioner(s) Versus THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DIVYESH A JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA Date : 27/09/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Though the New India Insurance Company Ltd., has been joined as respondent, considering the nature of relief that has been claimed by SCA/17825/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT the petitioner in this petition, it is not required to be heard and, therefore, no notice has been issued to it, more particularly because against the award made in M.A.C. Petition No. 705/1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, no appeal has been filed by it. 2. The petitioner has challenged order passed by the said Tribunal below application at Exh. 1 in the aforesaid proceedings. By the said application the petitioner has prayed that amount of Rs.1,10,000/- which is invested in the fixed deposit for a period of five years be permitted to be withdrawn before the date of its maturity. This amount has been paid to the petitioner by way of compensation for the death of petitioner's brother in a vehicular accident. The Tribunal in-all awarded Rs.7,43,195/- by way of compensation, but in apportionment the petitioner received Rs.1,83,255/-, out of which Rs.73,255/- was paid to the petitioner on 1/10/2003 and the balance was deposited in the fixed deposit. 2.1. It is stated by the petitioner that he has purchased a plot of land from one Meenaben Jitendrabhai Patel and has executed a contract for development of the property with Ashwamegh Developers. He has stated that the said plot was sold to him by Meenaben for a sum of Rs.55,000/- and the development agreement is for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-, out of which by now around Rs.5 lacs has already been paid to the Developers. 3. This Court by order dated 18/7/2007 directed the concerned Tribunal to depute responsible officer of the Court to make detailed inquiry and SCA/17825/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT ascertain the correct facts and to submit a report to this Court. In pursuance of the said direction, the Deputy Registrar, District Court, S.K. At Himatnagar, Mr. MK Malek was directed to make inquiry. He has made the inquiry and submitted detailed report. I have perused the same. It supports the say of the petitioner. It is stated therein that the plot no. 40 was purchased by the petitioner from its original owner Meenaben Jitendrabhai Patel and thereafter a contract for development of the said plot has been given to Ashwamegh Developers for a sum of Rs.6,25,000/-. It is also stated that out of the said amount, Rs.3,25,000/- has already been paid to the Developers and Rs.3 lacs is still outstanding. It is stated by Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner that this was the position on or around 1/8/2007, but thereafter further payment has been made and it is now to the extent of Rs.5 lacs. In view of the same, it appears that the claim of the petitioner is genuine and it is necessary to allow him to withdraw the amount prematurely. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to encash the fixed deposit which is lying in Sabarkantha – Gandhinagar Gramin Bank bearing receipt no. 052195 before its maturity subject to the regulations of the bank. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. [ Akshay H Mehta, J. ] * Pansala.