AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
Application filed by the Petitioners seeking release of the amount, ordered to be deposited, has been rejected by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal vide Annexure-G holding that as this Court had specifically directed that out of the enhanced amount, a sum of 75,000/- along with proportionate interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the 1st Petitioner herein who is the wife of late Amar Singh. for 5 years and a sum of 50,000/- each to be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 herein who are the children of deceased Amar Singh and as also a sum of 50,000/- to be kept in fixed deposit in the name of 5th Petitioner herein, who is the mother of the deceased, the prayer made in the application for release of the amount cannot be granted.
The Tribunal has not referred to the averments made in the affidavit and the urgent necessity that has been pleaded by the Petitioners herein for the release of the amount. As can be seen from the affidavit filed by the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 herein, they have sought for release of the entire amount ordered to be deposited, contending that the marriage of the elder daughter of the deceased has been settled and the marriage is scheduled to take place on 6.3.2011 and therefore, the family is in need of money. They have further contended that they have no source of income to perform the marriage. Infact, the Petitioners have produced the marriage invitation card along with the application. Despite the same, the Court below has not considered the application of the Petitioners.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the entire material on record. The 1st Respondent, being the widow of the deceased, is justified in pleading that the amount may be released for celebrating the marriage of her elder daughter. However, the entire amount cannot be ordered to be released as otherwise she will be left with nothing to support her. Hence, I deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal that 50% of the amount payable to the 1st Respondent be released in her favour.
As the marriage of the 2nd Petitioner is being celebrated, there cannot be any impediment for releasing the entire amount payable to her for being utilised for the purpose of her marriage expenses and for settling her in life, particularly because she is 23 years old and it is shown by producing the marriage invitation card that her marriage is scheduled to take place on 6.3.2011. As regards the amount ordered to be paid to the 3rd Petitioner and to be invested in her name, the same cannot be permitted to be withdrawn. The request made to this effect is rejected. This Court has to keep in mind the interest of the young girl who is only about 20 years old and her marriage is yet to take place. As and when the necessity arises, she is at liberty to move the Court below for release of the amount.
In so far as the request of the 5th Petitioner is concerned, having regard to the fact that the family is celebrating the marriage of one of the Petitioners viz. Neelain, her request for release can also be favourably considered and 75% of the amount payable to her is permitted to be released to her.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the order passed.