WTHE HIGHCQURT OF JUDICATCKE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CIVJL REVISION N0.- I ui'-^ OF 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS c/^/ \^^ ^M^ //^ ^' .y ^ ;Smt. Sarswati Thakur, W/o Late Kamal Singh Thakur, aged about 35 years, Resident of- Naharpara, Police Sation- Ganj, Raipur, Tehsil and District - Raipur VERSUS 1. Mohammed Rahis @ Mohatnmed ' Rais, Occupation- Driver, S/o Abdul Aziz, aged about 24 years, Resident of - Railway Coloney, Dallirajhara, Police Station- Dallirajhara, Tehsil Balod, District - Durg (C.G.) ,2: AshrafMemon (Vehicle Owner) S/o Abdul Sattar, aged about 32 years , Resident of - Village- Kusumkasa, Police Station- Dallirajhara, Tehsil Balod, Dist Durg (C.G.) 3^ The New India Insuraace Company Limited , dirough Divisional Manager, Divisional OfSce, The New India Insurance Company Limited Madina Buildmg, Kutchery Chowk , Medical College Road, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) MEMO OF CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE XI-HC-22 ^^ Tqpn^pT, •s-g^pis, icidiuy ..^^M:..Ki.i^ WW-iT »*i!cn — an^rqii W sn^v- Sh^ffch ylifl '^ ^^ ^' 31I^T TCHW ^lftcf 20.12.2005 Shri Shh/endu Pandya. leamed| The applicaht has preferred ttj 24.11.2005 by 14th Additional Moto| <tii'i<tc(41-i tiitRif 4 ts%t TfsR^re ^7 3lf^FI 311^1 ccwnselfortheappliGarit ils reviston againd: ths onter dated • Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in Claim Case No. 79/2004 ^nd by whteh ttie appluaUon <rf ttie applicant for refease ofRs. 50,WQ/- beenrejected. Learned counsel ferthe appUe^nt submite ttiat ttie application was rejected sotely on the ground that tt\ from her ft»ddepcsit accoynt has e applteant has afreadywithdraim Rs. 1,00,000/- from her fixed deposit aecount in the span of three-four months and the reason for withdratyat Is net sirticient. t-l®we\rerthe applicant who is a qualifled lady bon]afldely needs the above amount of Rs. 50,000/- to repay her loanand the|applicant Is tecing hardships. - Taking into cohsideration thatljhe appllcant has already been paid Rs. 1,00,000/- and total amount of Rs.50,000/- te balanceJn th®fixed deposit account, I do hot find any Hl^gality in Uie impugned orcter vrfiich calls for interference in the revision|at jurisdtcUon amt acc&tdirgly the revision is rejeeted. ConsequenUy I.A. No. 3338/20()5 stands disposed <rf. _- ^ ' Sd/- OhirendraMisbra lud&e ['tft^^fe^