Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Geeta @ Raj Kumari v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge - WRIT - C No. 17708 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6147 (4 April 2007)


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).


    COURT NO.24

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17708 of 2007

Smt.Geeta alias Raj Kumari.................................................Petitioner


Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,

Court No.3, Allahabad.......................................................Respondents.


Hon.Tarun Agarwala, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, passed an award dated 24.7.2006 awarding the compensation of Rs.3,56,300/- along with interest @ 7% per annum. Pursuant to the said award the amount  was deposited and by an order dated 14.12.2006, the compensation was apportioned and the petitioner was given a sum of Rs.1,32,280/-. Out of this amount, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of five years and only released a sum of Rs.32,280/- in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for the release of the entire amount which was rejected by an order dated 15.2.2007. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has filed the present writ petition.

Admittedly the petitioner is a major and once compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and apportioned, the Tribunal acting as an executing Court cannot sit as appellate court over the award nor can it pass any order to the detriment of the claimant, especially when the claimant is a major and has a right to deal with the money in such manner as she likes. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to keep the amount in a fixed deposit. Similar view was held in the case  of Smt. Vimla Devi vs. Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal decided on 17.3.2005. The Supreme Court in H.S. Ahmmed Hussain and another vs. Irfan Ahammed and another, 2002(3)AWC 2438(SC) has held that the Tribunal should not keep any compensation in a fixed deposit where the amount is payable to a major. In the present case the petitioner is a major and the direction of the Tribunal in its order dated 12.12.2006 keeping the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in a fixed deposit for five years is patently erroneous. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal dated 12.12.2006 in so far as it relates to the deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- in a fixed deposit for a period of 5 five years is quashed. Consequently, the order dated 15.2.2007 is also quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. The Tribunal is directed to release the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with  interest which has accrued on it, in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. The release of the amount would be subject to the undertaking given by the petitioner that no appeal has been filed by any of the opposite parties against the award before a higher forum.




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


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 |

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