In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 597 of 2009 Date of decision: February 3,2009 Smt. Daya Devi ..Petitioner Versus Shishpal ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. B.B.Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 17.1.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Karnal whereby application filed on behalf of the petitioner for release of the amount of compensation which is lying deposited in the shape of Fixed Deposit Receipt in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mini Secretariat Karnal in pursuance to the award dated 8.8.2008 has been dismissed. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs. 3, 05,000/- along with interest as compensation on account of death of her husband who died in a road accident on 24.5.2006. A sum of Rs. 3,47,341/- was deposited in the name of the petitioner in Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of three years in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mini Secretariat, Karnal as per the award. The said Fixed Deposit receipt will mature on 13.8.2011. The said deposit was made in pursuance of the award dated 24.4.2008 in Claim Petition No.132 of 2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The condition of deposit of the compensation amount for a period of three years in a fixed deposit has not been challenged by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that petitioner earlier made an application for the release of amount deposited in the aforesaid Fixed Deposit Receipt. However, vide order dated 9.8.2008, an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- was released in favour of the petitioner considering the reasons mentioned in her application. Undisputedly, the present application for release of the remaining amount of the Fixed Deposit Receipt is being sought to be released on the same grounds as mentioned in the earlier application. The amount of compensation was ordered to be deposited in the fixed deposit keeping in view the interest and welfare of the petitioner so that she can sustain herself after the death of her husband who died in the motor vehicle accident. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. February 3, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE