C.R. No. 5573 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5573 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.09.2010 Nisha Devi .......... Petitioner Versus Ravinder Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.7.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal), vide which the application moved by the petitioner for release of accrued interest and the future interest has been partly allowed. The learned Tribunal, keeping in view the expenses being incurred, on the study of the minor children, allowed the petitioner to withdraw the amount of interest on monthly basis accruing on the FDRs in the name of minors. However, the prayer for release of interest accrued till date stands declined. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the learned Tribunal erred to notice, that the accrued interest claimed C.R. No. 5573 of 2010 -2- ***** was also for the interest of the minors. The learned Tribunal, therefore, erred in declining the complete relief claimed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends, that the certificate from school, was attached with the application showing, that the fee of the children had not been paid. The basic responsibility for paying the fee is on the parents. The petitioner can not absolve of her responsibility, merely for the reason that in absence of release of accrued interest lying to the credit of children, she is unable to pay the fee. The learned Tribunal, in the interest of justice, allowed the petitioner to withdraw the amount of interest on monthly basis, accruing on the FDRs of the minor children. The amount kept in the FDRs is for the welfare of the children, which is to be used by them on attaining majority. The petitioner will need the amount for higher studies of children on later date. The order passed is in fact in the interest of the minors, as well as in the interest of the petitioner. No ground for interference, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, is made out. Dismissed. 01.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE