CR No.190 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.190 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.08.2010 Sukhvinder Singh ..Petitioner Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this court to challenge the order dated 7.01.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short the Tribunal), vide which application moved by the petitioner for release of money lying in FDR No.0496183 dated 5.3.2009 has been declined. The petitioner who is an industrialist, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident. Claim petition field by the petitioner was allowed by the learned Tribunal, and he was granted Rs.2,15,000/- (Rupees two lacs and fifteen thousand only) as compensation for the injuries suffered. Learned Tribunal at the time of passing of award directed CR No.190 of 2010 2 release of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), and rest of the money was directed to be deposited in fixed deposit. The petitioner moved an application, for the release of the amount lying in FDR, as it was required by him for running his industry more effectively by making proper investment, as well as for the medical expenses but incurred on the treatment. Learned trial court released another sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) of the FDR without assigning any reason as to why the remaining amount was not to be released. The purpose of keeping the amount in fixed deposit is to protect the old, infirm and the children, so that guardian of those persons are not able to use that money, leaving them helpless. The compensation awarded to a person, who is well educated and running an industry, cannot be directed to be kept in fixed deposit against his wishes nor the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application to release the money of FDR. The petitioner is educated and self employed person, therefore, is in need of money, which belongs to him. Consequently, this revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The application moved by the petitioner for release of whole of money lying in FDR is allowed. No costs. (Vinod K.Sharma) 16.08.2010 Judge rp