-') HIGH COURT OF CHHAtTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(ClNo.663/2008 PETITIONBR RESPONDENTS l Ku. Khilesliwan, aged about 8 years, daughter of Parasuiam Sahu, Minor, fhrough her legal representative Parasuram. Sahu, s/o Ramlal Sahu, resident of Katalbod, P.S. Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G$. yersas Sanipatram, s/o Bteahu Ram Nirmalkar, resident of Urmada, P.S. & Tah: Kurad, Distt. Dhamtari(C,G). Paakaj Kumar Naidu, s/o Aml Kiuaar Naidu, Tah; Kiu-ud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G). Manager, The Oriental Insurauce Co., Ltd., Biaach Office, ia front of Adarsh Temple, Main Road, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G). WRIT PE'nTIOBr UNDER ARTICLB 227 OF THB CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA Appearance: Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, counsel for the petitioner. ^w- ORAI-ORDMt (15A2008) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, Heard on adniission. The petitioner, a miaor girl aged about 8 years met with .an accident on 18.2.2006 forwluch certain compensatioa was awaided on 13.5.2007 inClaim Case No.61/2006 by fhe conceraed Lok Adalat. The amount of compensatioa was Rs.1,60,000/-. It is stated fhat Lok Adalat has disectied for makiug deposit of fhe said amount aad the eatirt amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was deposited in a term deposit op 06.09.2007. Thereafter, au appUcation for releasing ttie aiaoiint was ffled j)efore fhe Tnbtmal and the Tribunal after due consideration W.P.rC). No.663 of2008 allowed fhe appUcatioa in part and directed tbat Rs.60,000/- shall be paid to fhe petitioncr aad Rs.1,00,000/- shaB be kept ia the fixed deposit for 10 years. It is against ttus oider; ttie pejtitioner/claiiaant has preferrcd this writ petition through her father. Leamed counsel for the petitioaer submits fhat the Tribunal has ^aored the evidence showing tiiat Iiuge expenditure was incurred in the treatment ofthe giri and a rod put in fhe leg of fhe girl is to be reinoved. He submits that fhough the tribiinal has accepted fhat the renioval of the rod requires Rs.25,000/- but it coinptetely lost site bffheiact fhat a huge amount was taken on loaa by the father of the petitioner which he has deposed in his evideace before fhe Tribzmal. He subxnits that soine more ainount niay be released so that the loaa takea by fhe tafher can be repaid. I have considered fhe groimds raised by learaed counsel for the petitioner and have gone ttu-ougb the evidence coUected by the Tribunal during the coirrse ofenquuy. After due consideration ofthe&cts aad circumstaaces of fhe case,! deein it proper to release Rs.25,000/- more fi'om the deposit ia favour ofthe petitioner. It is directed that ia addition to Rs.60,000/-, Rs.25,000/- inore shall be released to tfae petitioner and remaining Rs.75,000/- shatt be deposited in a fixed deposit for a period of 10 years as per the earlier order passed in fhis regard. With tfae above modiBcation in the order dated 30.10.2007, fhis petition staads finally disposed of at fhe motion stage itself. _a_ •'?•• Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge fV