IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (c'.G.) mats aencn , ‘w c.R. No i1 2004 APPLICANT : / Mahmood Khan S/o Mohammad Khan, aged about 50 Years, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Navapara, €laimant Surajpur, P.S. 8a Tahsil , Surajpur District Sarguja (C.G.) V s i VERSUS ESPONDEN‘TS z 1. Mohd. Shafi s/o Mohd. Yaqub Musalman, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Godiward, Pusad District Yavatmal (M.S.) . Mohd. Iqbal S/o Hazi Noormohmmad , Musalman, Occpation OwnerJkR/o Lohar Line, Pusad District Yavatmal (M.S.) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Regional Office Shivaji Marg Pune Amravati (M.S.) i i iR i N on—applicants Eig Ti F u v vs V- CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 1 15 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE x the order dated 3.11.03 assed‘ b’v' the Ilnd Motor Accident Claims Tr’ibuna1,,F.T.‘C. Sura1pur, The applicant begs to submit as under :— . FACTS That, the applicant has filed a claim petition V/ ., District Sarguja in Case No. L103 1 . ' HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHA! il56ARH) l I CIVIL REVISION NO. 27 of 2004 Mohd. Khan Vs. Mohd. Shafi and o‘rher‘s i ‘* “ O R D E R I Pos‘r for: (m03-2004 (v W Sd/— " L.C.BHADOO Judge Qt}i)~03-200Z MIWJ VHXGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION NO. 27 of 2004 - Mohd. Khan Vs. Mohd. Shafl and others. Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for petitioner. v ORDER (Paseed on [0 %&v-March, 2004) e As pe‘r L.C. Bhadod, J. The applicant} claimant namely Mahmood Khan has prefened this civil Erevision being aggrieved by the order dated 03/ 11/2003 passed by the 11nd Motor Accident Claims tribunal (ETC), Surajpur, District Sarguja in c ’se 110.1[2003. 2. The 'brief facts giving rise to filing of this civil revision are that the applicant filed a case for grant of compensation against the respondents on apcount of the injuries suifered by him in a motor vehicle accident of t whicéh the respondent no. 1 was a driver and respondent no.2 is the owner of that motor vehicle. In motor accidents claim no. is 37/ 2002 vide its order dated 23/ 11/2002 the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded the accident claim of Rs.68,500/- and further directed for payment of interest w.e.f. 18/08] 2000 and directed to deposit the said amoiints in a hxed deposit ofS years in a nationalized bank. Accordingly thati‘amount has been deposited. i i 3. i The applicant herein made an application before the Tribunal for i releasing the amount of Rs.79,942/- as the same was required to pay i i i r Rs 20 000/ — *0 hls Truck owner from Whom he took that money for the purpose of treatment and also for paymg the fees to Ins advocate and also for the marriage of his daughter, On accOunt of the mjumes sustamed by; the claimant he isnot able to drive the vehicle and theree‘is no source of I ‘ earning as such he be permitted to withdraw the amount‘iof Rs.79,942/— deposited in the fixed deposit. ‘ . ' i 1 4. The learned Tribunal rejected the anplication and 1n support of the ’ application the claimant got examined Rambha} Agalwal the owner of the truck and the Tribunal allowed the Withdrawal of the interest amount of Rs. 1[1,6QO/ ~and rejected the rest of the request. . w t . 5. ‘ I have heard learned counsel for the applicant 6. i 1n tlns connection the Hon’ble Apex court 1n the matter of K S.‘ RT Corporation Vs Susamma Thomas and others, reported m AER ' 1994 SC 1631 issued the guidelines regarding the depos1t of acc1dent lanln 1n the hxed depos1t and the Circumstances under which the app cation can be allowed for wrthdrawal of the amount of the acc1dent claim fiom the hxed depos1t Under those guidelines the Hon’ble Apex V Count has 1ssued guidelines that 1n case of illiterate claimants, the Claims {Tribimal should follow the procedure set out in (i) but if lump sum I payment is required for eh‘ecting purchases of any movable or immovable property, such as agricultural implements rickshaw etc to earn a liVing, the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a rouge to Withdraw money and the Tribunal is required to ensure and to safeguard the feed horn being tlittered away by the benefic1a1y due to ignorance illiteracy or susceptibility to explmtation As per the guidelines issued in the above case the Tribunal is required to safeguard the interest of the laimant while allowmg the premature Withdrawal the paramount -.t‘ < I -_. W] 1‘. x v 1 con idéraiion before the Tn'bunal is to ensure the larger interest of the c1 " ant. 7 In View of the above guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, if we look into the present case of the applicant, the applicant has mentioned that money is required for making the payment of Rs.20,000] — to 's owner which he took at the time of treatment, further payment to his advocate and also for the purpose of the marriage of his daughtert It appears from the application made by the applicant that he has not » e mentioned in the application that when the marriage of his daughter was 1 hxed, bat he simply stated that this year his daughter’s marriage is going l to take place. As far as medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal has already ordered for release of Rs, 11,600/-and the other amount was not alloWed to be withdrawn by the applicant as the same was considered to be in the interest of the benefit of the claimant. 8. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, therefore, this revision is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. //// Sd/— L.c.BHAD°° Judge l~srl** fam 03/2004 ( .