IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2649 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO.2649 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO.2649 OF 2006 Smt. Sangeeta Chandrakant Kokitkar & Ors. ...Appellants Smt. Sangeeta Chandrakant Kokitkar & Ors. ...Appellants Smt. Sangeeta Chandrakant Kokitkar & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Vs. Vs. Subhash Krishna Bandiwadekar & Anr. ...Respondents Subhash Krishna Bandiwadekar & Anr. ...Respondents Subhash Krishna Bandiwadekar & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.T.J.Mendon for Appellants Mr.T.J.Mendon for Appellants Mr.T.J.Mendon for Appellants CORAM: SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE & CORAM: SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE & CORAM: SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATE : 7TH NOVEMBER, 2006. DATE : 7TH NOVEMBER, 2006. DATE : 7TH NOVEMBER, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellants/Petitioners. Appellants/Petitioners. Appellants/Petitioners. 2. Petitioners are the original claimants having 2. Petitioners are the original claimants having 2. Petitioners are the original claimants having filed claim Petition which was allowed by the impugned filed claim Petition which was allowed by the impugned filed claim Petition which was allowed by the impugned order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal dated 30th order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal dated 30th order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal dated 30th August, 2005. A compensation of Rs.15,52,000/- was August, 2005. A compensation of Rs.15,52,000/- was August, 2005. A compensation of Rs.15,52,000/- was awarded to four claimants. However, in para 9 of the awarded to four claimants. However, in para 9 of the awarded to four claimants. However, in para 9 of the impugned order the members of the Motor Accident Claim impugned order the members of the Motor Accident Claim impugned order the members of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal directed that the amount payable to claimant Nos. Tribunal directed that the amount payable to claimant Nos. Tribunal directed that the amount payable to claimant Nos. 1 and 2 be deposited in Nationalised Bank for the period 1 and 2 be deposited in Nationalised Bank for the period 1 and 2 be deposited in Nationalised Bank for the period of 5 years and the Bank was directed not to allow any loan of 5 years and the Bank was directed not to allow any loan of 5 years and the Bank was directed not to allow any loan or advance to the present Petitioners who are original or advance to the present Petitioners who are original or advance to the present Petitioners who are original claimant nos.1 and 2. claimant nos.1 and 2. claimant nos.1 and 2. 3. It is this part of the order only that is 3. It is this part of the order only that is 3. It is this part of the order only that is challenged because there was no justification for the challenged because there was no justification for the challenged because there was no justification for the Tribunal to order deposit of the amount of the Petitioner Tribunal to order deposit of the amount of the Petitioner Tribunal to order deposit of the amount of the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 because the Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of Nos.1 and 2 because the Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of Nos.1 and 2 because the Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of the deceased who died in the accident and Petitioner No.2 the deceased who died in the accident and Petitioner No.2 the deceased who died in the accident and Petitioner No.2 is the mother aged about 70 years. is the mother aged about 70 years. is the mother aged about 70 years. 4. However, notice was ordered to be issued to 4. However, notice was ordered to be issued to 4. However, notice was ordered to be issued to Respondent No.2 by this Court on 30th October, 2006, Respondent No.2 by this Court on 30th October, 2006, Respondent No.2 by this Court on 30th October, 2006, because bhatta was not paid time was extended. because bhatta was not paid time was extended. because bhatta was not paid time was extended. 5. Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner states that 5. Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner states that 5. Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner states that no notice to any other parties is necessary because he is no notice to any other parties is necessary because he is no notice to any other parties is necessary because he is not challenging the quantum or the findings. His only not challenging the quantum or the findings. His only not challenging the quantum or the findings. His only grievance is that the tribunal was not at all justified in grievance is that the tribunal was not at all justified in grievance is that the tribunal was not at all justified in ordering deposit of the amount in the Nationalised Bank ordering deposit of the amount in the Nationalised Bank ordering deposit of the amount in the Nationalised Bank coming to the share of the Petitioners/ original claimant coming to the share of the Petitioners/ original claimant coming to the share of the Petitioners/ original claimant Nos.1 and 2. Nos.1 and 2. Nos.1 and 2. 6. The grievance of the Appellants/Petitioners is 6. The grievance of the Appellants/Petitioners is 6. The grievance of the Appellants/Petitioners is well founded that the claimant nos.1 and 2 were major well founded that the claimant nos.1 and 2 were major well founded that the claimant nos.1 and 2 were major their compensation should have been paid to them directly their compensation should have been paid to them directly their compensation should have been paid to them directly and not ordered to be deposited. In any case Respondent and not ordered to be deposited. In any case Respondent and not ordered to be deposited. In any case Respondent No.2 has been served by the appellant’s Advocate. The No.2 has been served by the appellant’s Advocate. The No.2 has been served by the appellant’s Advocate. The Appellants have produced the notice of Appeal sent to the Appellants have produced the notice of Appeal sent to the Appellants have produced the notice of Appeal sent to the Respondent No.2 dated 16th October, 2006 upon which the Respondent No.2 dated 16th October, 2006 upon which the Respondent No.2 dated 16th October, 2006 upon which the acknowledgment of the Respondent No.2 is there. It is acknowledgment of the Respondent No.2 is there. It is acknowledgment of the Respondent No.2 is there. It is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. taken on record and marked "X" for identification. taken on record and marked "X" for identification. 7. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances at 7. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances at 7. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances at this stage appeal is taken up for final hearing and it is this stage appeal is taken up for final hearing and it is this stage appeal is taken up for final hearing and it is partly allowed. Paragraph no.9 of the impugned order from partly allowed. Paragraph no.9 of the impugned order from partly allowed. Paragraph no.9 of the impugned order from the operative part of the order is set aside. The amount the operative part of the order is set aside. The amount the operative part of the order is set aside. The amount of compensation falling to the share of Appellants 1 and 2 of compensation falling to the share of Appellants 1 and 2 of compensation falling to the share of Appellants 1 and 2 should be paid to them directly by the Tribunal. should be paid to them directly by the Tribunal. should be paid to them directly by the Tribunal. 8. Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs. 8. Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs. 8. Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SHRI D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)