4 A XI,HC-7S ^\^{' NW^T^^I^ ~3^ ^^TRT^R, iN1XF[^, fer]TOy ^)l.^t)...^..:..^..^i.lo|.^200 3Ti^T 'q^^' ('^t3^T) -3Tf^T'^T^^W ^T^? W^IW^te I^TW^n^H^i fSinole Bench: H w Petitk»ner fClaimanrt Resiwidents VersiB Present: AAr. D. Shrivastava, Advocate -j <^i4i{<n4iti ^TTR^f ^f fe^ <P?I<^(< ^3t^T3IT^T m'ble ttr. Justtee Dhipendra Mishray P. (227) No.»5247/08 Smt. Sugyi Bai Samundre, W/o Late Sitaram Samundare, aged about 63 years, R/o Veerbhadra Nogar, Tikrapara, Raipir, Tahsil and Dtetrict ftaipur (C.6.) 1. Smt. Kiran Samundare, W/o Shri Late Vinod Kumar Samundare, aged about 38 years, Occupation-House Wife. 2. Ku. A^egha Samundore, D/o Late Vinod Kumar Samundcre (Minor), studied in Class-V. 3. Aakash Samundare, S/o Late Vinod Kumar Samundare aged • about (%> years (Mincr), studied in Class-III. 4. Ku. Barkha Samundare, D/o Late Vinod Kumar Samundare aged about 04years (AAinw). (ftespondent No.2 to 4 being minor on behalf of throtgh their legal gi-Krdian mother respondent Nto.l-Smt. Kiran &imundare) 5. ftamayan Das Manikpuri, S/o P.D. Manjkpiri, aged atout 35 years, OccufKition Advocacy, K/o Tikrapara, (Infront of ft.b^. Cobny) Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (owner of vehicle bearing registration NO.C^.Ol/CC/7514) 6. The New India Insirance Company Limited, through bivisional A^anager, bivisionat Office, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) pEnsurep] :or the petitioner. + XI-HG—78 l3T[^T-^r f^pF ^rm r^ ';5:IFT?^PT, ^>tTl<M4[<o, '[^<ri!^^< •^ 200 ( ^t^^T) ^^Tiw^nw^ —z' 19.9.2008 By the instant petitK^n and validity of the order Principal Motor AccidCTit Clc| of the petitioner for releas^ years fixed deposit, has bee^i After hearing leame< fact that the petitioner remaining amount of R:s.50, years' fixed deposit, I am| irregutarit/ or jurisdiction^ interference in exercise Constitution and the petitiorj Accordingjy/ the petilfon <=r>i^[^i<4li 'W^ff ^ ft^T <r^^« '^'^tfOT^T?^ the petitioner has questioned the legality ^f Annexure P-1 dated 2.4.2008 passed by (ims Tribunal. Raipur whereby the application of Rs.50,000/-, which was invested in three rejected. counsel for the petitioner, considerin9 the ^wxs already paid fts.50,000/- in cash and OOO/- was directed to be jnvested in three of the opinion that there is no illegality, |il error in the impu9ned order warrantjng ^f jurisdiction uncter Art-icle 227 of the is tiable to be dismissed. ^— isdismissed. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge