Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAIPAL SINGH versus THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE MACT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jaipal Singh v. The Addl. District Judge Mact - WRIT - C No. 50317 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 6938 (30 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50317 of 2005

Jai Pal Singh Vs.      The Additional District Judge, MACT,

 Court No. 3, Rampur

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

On the accidental death of one Smt. Kamla, the petitioner, who was the husband of the deceased, as well as her daughter Km. Kavita (minor) filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 22,90,000/-. By an award dated 9.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC No. 178 of 2003 a sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- was determined as compensation amount on which 6% interest was to be paid. In pursuance of the said award, the Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs. 1,72,099/- before the Tribunal. Since the petitioner was not paid the said amount of compensation, he filed an application on which the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 21.4.2005, whereby it was directed that out of the total amount deposited i.e. 1,72,099/- a sum of Rs. 72,099/- be kept in a fixed deposit for the minor daughter and Rs. 25,000/- may be paid to the petitioner and the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- be kept in a separate fixed deposit account in the Nationalised Bank and the interest be paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

By the award dated 9.12.2004 the amount of compensation was awarded to both the claimants i.e. the petitioner and the minor daughter Km. Kavita. Although in the said award, the amount was not apportioned between the two claimants but it would be understood that the same would be distributed equally between both the claimants. Accordingly, in my opinion, the petitioner would be entitled to half of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company and the remaining would be paid to the other claimant i.e. Km. Kavita. Since the other claimant Km. Kavita is minor, her share of compensation may be kept in fixed deposit, with the Nationalised Bank paying maximum interest and shall be paid to her on her making an application after she attains majority. The half share of the petitioner may be paid to the petitioner immediately. The order dated 21.4.2005 passed by the Tribunal in Civil Misc. Application No. 19 of 2005 is modified to the extent indicated above.

This writ petition is disposed of in terms mentioned above. No order as to costs.

Dt/-30.3.2006

PS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.