IN THE HIGH COURT Of' CHHATTISQARH : BILASPUR Wnt Petition (227) No. 4815 of 2008 Petitioner Claiinaat Sm.t Sakina Khatoon, w/o Late Shri Lal Mohammad @ Lalji, aged about 24 years, R/o near the house ofAnwar Contractor, Laloo Ram Colouy, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Distfc Korba C.G. Versus Respondents ABahabad Bank througtt th.e Branch Mauayr, Branch - KoAa C.G. WR1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 QF THE CQNSnTUTION Qg INDIA (SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri M. K. Baeg, Advocate for tfae petitioner, O R DE R (Passed on this 1st Day ofSeptember, 2008) The petitioner has filed tbis pctition seekii^ a direction to release the amouut of Rs. 50,000/- lying ia the fixed depoat wifh ftte respondent Baate i.e. F.D.R. No. 306659, whichw^ gtanted to her iu a claiia case. The facts, in nutsheU, are that the petitioner (wife) aloiig with three applicants (ininor chiidren) Iiad filed a Claaa Case No. 118/2006 for grant of' coiupeasatton, as her husband died iu aa accident on 23.1.2004. Vide award dated 28.4.2007, passed by tbe leamed Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba a total coinpensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petttioner and Ks. 1,00,000/- each to three cluldrea, with 9% suupte interest, was awarcted, ia addition to Rs. 50,000/-, wbichwas awarded as iaterun coxapensatton. Leacned Clauus Tribunal directed for payiaeut of Rs. 50,000/ - to the petitioner ia cash, and reniauung amouut was directed to be kept in fixed deposit scheme i.e. Rs. 50,000/- tbr five years, Rs. 50,000/- for ten years aad Rs. 50,000/- for fifiteen years. Likewise, Rs. 1,00,000/ - each, awaided to tfae three miaor children, were directed to be kept iu fixed deposit scheiae i.e. Rs. 25,000/- for five years, Rs, 25,000/- for ten years, Rs. 25,000/- for fifteen years, and Rs. 25,000/- for twenty yeara, iu auy nationalized Bank. 6. 7. Thalcur Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application betbre the Claiins Tribunal Ibr releasc of the whole amount in. cash on fhe ground fhat her house is in dilapidated condition aad she is icquired to purchase sonie articles regarding sewing/lailoring work, Leamed Claims Tribuaal, having considered the facts aud cuciuasteaces aad that the petitioner had already utUized a sum. of Rs. 1,85,965/- durtag last one year, rejected the applieation for release of tlie ainoiint vide order dated 3.5.2008 (Aanexure P/6). Being E^grieved the petitioner has filed this petition tbr release of the whole sum, The aiuouat so deposited was for subsistence of the dcpendant ineiiibeis of ttie deceased, not tbr construction of a house or piirchase of aay other articJc. If the entire money is released, tfaere is no guarautee that tbe same woiild be used for subsistence purpose, particularly iu view ofthe fact fhat Rs. 1,00,000/- each, awarded to ftie iniaor children, has been kept in a fixed deposit tbr their subSKtence. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner and baving gone thiough the docuiaents appended fhereto, 1 do not find aay reason to iaterfere with or niodify ttie iaipi^ued oider dated 3.5.2008. It is weU-nigfa established tliat fhis Court in exercise of its supcrvisoiy jurisdiction under Ardcle 227 of the Constitution of India shoiild refl-ain iteelf froui iaterfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except iu sucb cases wfaere perversily, illegaUly, irregularity or jurisdictioiial error is writ lai^e on the face ofthe record, whicli is not ia thc present case. lu view of the fbregoiag, there is no nierit ui this petition aad the same is disinissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrl Judge^