m’maua 8mm C ‘wg \ab IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.’1>.(227) No. MEé /2011 PETITIONERS / 1. Dukalhin Bai, Wd/o Biju 1C1aimants) Patel, aged about 45 years, Occupation- House Wife. /2. Dinesh Kumar Patel, S/o Late Biju Patel, aged about 3O years, Occupation Kastkari, , Both are resident of Vinage Singhanpuri, P.S.' Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. ,Kabirdham (co). Dineshiya Bai W/o Mahesh Patel, aged about 30 years, Occupation- House Wife, R/o Village Padi, Police .Station Pandariya, Tahsil Pandariya, _ Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Ravi Kumar Tandi, S/o LD-e—fe—n-Lants‘ Karmu Tandki, aged about 3O years, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Goshala para, Raigaifh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Jaisirigh Thakur, S/o Bhikhari Singh Thakur, aged about 40 years. R/ o Ramgudipara, Tahsil and Distt. Raigar’h (co) 1i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BEA‘SPUR ‘ S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 1456/2011 PETITIONERS : Dukalhin Bai and others Versus RESPONDENTS : Ravi Kumar Tandi and others ' Appearance: Shn' Ajit Singh, counsel for the petitioners. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDE ORAL ORDER (1 7.03.201 l) Claimants have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the _, Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham on 25/01/2011 directing that out of total award amount of Rs. 3,07,815/- a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- be deposited in the name of petitioner Dukalhin Bai in fixed deposit for a period often years and the interest accrued there hom be paid to Dukalhin Bai for her living. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioners would subinit that while passing the award on 25m June 2010 (Annexure P-2) no such condition was imposed by the Claims Tribunal, however Tribunal V L libefore whom the amount was deposited has imposed this condition of depositing the amount in fixed deposit which is without jurisdiction. iHe would submit that the impugned order amounts to amending the l faward which is not permissible in law. l x l K .‘i a: /2, (3) On perusal ofthe award and impugned ordcr, it appears mt no such condition of depositing the amount in the fixed deposit'Was ’ * imposed in the award. However, when amount was deposited by the Insurance Company and the petitioners moved an application for withdrawal ofthe amount the impugned order has been passed. (4) On perusal of the document it would appear that Dukalhin Bai, Wd/o of Biju Patel and her son Dinesh Kumar along with the married daughter were claimants. The Tribunal was of the view that since the petitioner No.2 Dinesh is himself earning member, it would be in the interest ofjustice to deposit the entire amount in the name of widow. The said reasoning ofthe Tribunal cannot be held to be improper. (5) However, at the same time it is to be seen that no such condition was imposed while passing the award. Therefore, in order to balance the equity it is required to provide some amount in lump sum, so that claimants can meet immediate expenses. (6) In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it proper to direct that a sum of Rs.l,50,000/- be disbursed to the claimants and the remaining Rs.1,50,000 be deposited in hxed depdsit in the name ofpetitioner No.1 Dukalhin Bai. (7) With this observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge