IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 04.10.2010 C.R.No.6432 of 2010 Jagir Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Kashmir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 06.09.2010, whereby an application for disbursement of the amount and not to keep the amount in fixed deposit, was declined. The learned Tribunal has found that the petitioner has not disclosed the full particulars of her son; age of the son; whether he is in business; and what type of commercial vehicle the son of the petitioner wants to purchase. The petitioner has also not given any particulars of house, the construction/repair of which petitioner wants to raise. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the averments made in the revision petition to contend that the petitioner has only one son, who is 25 years of age, for which the petitioner wishes to purchase the commercial vehicle. The observations of the learned District Judge are pertinent. It is open to the petitioner to move a fresh application before the learned Tribunal pointing out the particulars of her son; the present business in C.R.No.6432 of 2010 which he is engaged; what type of commercial vehicle he wants to purchase; and the cost of the said vehicle. The petitioner may also give sufficient particulars in respect of construction/repair of the house, as is stated before this Court to enable the District Judge to pass an appropriate order on such application. With the said observations, the present revision petition stands disposed of. 04.10.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2