High Courts(2009) 05 AHC CK 0516

Urmila Devi vs M.A.C.T./A.D.J.Azamgarh and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 25 May 2009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arun Tandon, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 366 words

Arun Tandon, J.

Petitioner before this Court is the widow of one Janardan who is stated to have expired due to a motor accident. In the Motor Accident Claim Petition filed by the writ petitioner being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 237 of 2008 an amount of Rs. 3,45,500/ was awarded as compensation with interest. Out of this amount, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was a female and have no other source of livelihood, it was provided that a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/ may be invested in F.D.R. with a nationalized bank for a period of five years with liberty to the petitioner to encash the interest on yearly basis. A sum of Rs. 70,500/ be paid to her in cash.

The petitioner made an application before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for prematured encashment of the F.D.R. The application was made on two grounds: a) that petitioner''s husband had taken some loan and she wants to return the said loan amount.

b) that the petitioner wants to carry out the repair work of her residential house.

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has rejected the application after recording a finding that there is no documentary evidence qua loan having been obtained. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.

In the facts of the present case I am of the considered opinion that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has rightly rejected the application made by the writ petitioner inasmuch as there is no documentary evidence that any loan was advanced to her husband. So far as the amount claimed for repair of the house is concerned, no details have been mentioned in the application. In the totality of the circumstances no interference is warranted.

Writ petition is dismissed.

However in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the petitioner makes a fresh application giving details of repair work to be carried out qua her residential house, before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, along with a certified copy of this order, her application shall be examined and a reasoned order shall be passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, within six weeks, thereafter.