Civil Revision No. 7795 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7795 of 2011 Date of decision. 16.12.2011 Saroj Devi .... Petitioner Versus The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Saroj Devi, in whose name some amount is lying in fixed deposit under the orders of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short 'the Tribunal'), is aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2011 ( Annexure P-1 ) passed by learned Tribunal whereby her prayer for release of remaining amount for repair of the house has been declined. The amount lying in the name of the petitioner is in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, which she has prayed to be released to her for repair of the house. Learned Tribunal has found her claim as to owning a house as doubtful and certainly learned Tribunal was not satisfied with her plea that the said house in dilapidated condition. Consequently, vide order dated 29.07.2011, the said application was dismissed. With the prayer to set aside the same, Saroj Devi has brought this revision petition. Civil Revision No. 7795 of 2011 --2-- I have heard Mr.Anil Ghanghas,learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the claimant is an adult woman and her amount could not have been ordered to be deposited. According to him, she would have to borrow money from money lenders for repair of the house if her amount was not released and she would be giving more interest to the money lenders than the interest she would be receiving against the fixed deposit. Though, learned Tribunal does not seem to be justified in doubting the claim of the petitioner that she owns a house, yet it is not clear from the application as to what is the extent of repair required to the house and whether the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- could be spent in the same. The case of the petitioner, though an adult person, is not to be equated with an adult claimant being son of deceased or an injured who is awarded compensation. The widow, as the case is with the petitioner, has lost the earning male member of her family and the amount has been awarded to her so as to provide her means to sustain and survive in the absence of the earning member. She has got Rs.2,50,000/- in the bank and if she is allowed to withdraw this amount, and she spends the entire amount on the repair of the house, she would be left with nothing to survive upon. There is no case that she has got some adult son, who is earning, on whom she could fall back for maintenance. Civil Revision No. 7795 of 2011 --3-- In these circumstances, I do not find the approach of learned trial court in declining the prayer to be perverse or even erroneous in any manner. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. 16.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge