Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SAKUNAT versus MACT (ADJ NO.1), DEEG, BHARATP

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SAKUNAT v MACT (ADJ NO.1), DEEG, BHARATP - CW Case No. 8830 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 2090 (18 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

ORDER

Smt.Sakunat and Ors.

Versus

M.A.C.T. Deeg and Ors.

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8830/2006

Date of Order : 18/4/2007.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Shri L.L. Gupta for the petitioners.

******

Reportable

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24/2/2006 (Ann.1) passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Deeg whereby the said Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- as interim-compensation to the petitioners-claimants under

Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On an application filed on behalf of the petitioners-claimants for disbursement of the compensation amount, the Tribunal vide order dated 24/7/2006 (Ann.2) issued directions for disbursement of an amount of Rs.14,945/- only out of total amount of interim-compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Rest amount of Rs.35,000/- was directed to be kept under the fixed deposit in the name of Smt.Shakunat for a period of seven years.

Learned counsel for the petitioners-complainants argued that the interim-compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 is in the nature of immediate relief and, therefore, the amount so awarded cannot be directed to be invested like the compensation granted at the time of ultimate award.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Smt.Preeto Bai

Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deeg, District Bharatpur : 2007(1) W.L.C. 788 and Harimohan & Ors. Vs. Oriental

Insurance Co.Ltd. : 1995(2) W.L.C. 339.

A perusal of the aforesaid judgments reveals that this Court has taken a view that in view of the necessity of claimants, interim-compensation should be released in favour of the claimants forthwith. Further, payment of amount of interim-award ought to be made to the claimants immediately otherwise the very purpose and object of the provisions contained in Section 140 of the Act of 1988 would be frustrated.

I am in agreement with the observations given by this Court in the aforesaid two cases because such compensation is awarded without determining the liability of the either party and, therefore, it is called as 'no fault liability compensation'. If the amount of interim- compensation is not immediately disbursed to the claimants, the very object of the legislature for providing this relief as a interim measure pending determination of total compensation and passing of final award, would be defeated.

Scheme of investment by way of fixed deposit as has been so ordered by the learned Tribunal could not be applied to the cases of interim-award.

In the circumstances, the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 24/2/2006 may be given effect to but the subsequent order dated 24/7/2006 whereby amount of

Rs.35,000/- was ordered to be invested as per the condition in the said order, is held to be not sustainable in law.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned-order dated 24/7/2006 is set-aside.

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil


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.