***

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) –

1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 18.10.2019 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram has rejected the prayer of the claimant-petitioner for withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited in the FDRs as directed by the Tribunal vide Award dated 27.05.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant-petitioner would contend that the claimant-petitioner had moved an application for withdrawal of the said money on the ground that he urgently needed the money for his studies and for the marriage of his sister. However, the application was dismissed vide the impugned order. Learned counsel for the claimant-petitioner would further contend that the claimant-petitioner is an adult and even at the time of filing of the claim petition he was 18 years of age and hence there was no occasion to place the said amount in two fixed deposits for a period of 3 years and 5 years. It is further the contention that the claimant-petitioner has already spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on his treatment and he requires the money for his further studies as well as for the marriage of his sister. The learned counsel further relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain vs. Irfan Ahammed [2002(3) RCR (Civil) 563] to contend that in the case of an adult it would not be appropriate to direct deposit of the amount of compensation in a fixed deposit.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In view of the fact that the matter is between the claimant-petitioner and the Tribunal, there is no requirement to issue notice of motion to the respondents.

5. In the present case the claimant-petitioner was a major at the time of filing of the claim petition and was awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by the Tribunal for the injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident. However, while disposing off the claim petition it was directed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid to the claimant-petitioner in cash and the remaining amount was split into two parts and was to be kept in fixed deposits for a period of three years and five years in a nationalized bank. The learned counsel has contended that the claimant-petitioner even at the time of filing of the claim petition was a major and there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have ordered the amounts to be put in fixed deposits. The Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain (supra) has laid down as under :

“8. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that the amount of compensation payable to mothers of the victims should not have been directed to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the mothers should not be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. In case the amounts have not been already invested, the same shall be paid to the mothers, but if, however, invested by depositing the same in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, there may be its premature withdrawal in case the parties so intend.”

6. Keeping in view the above as well as the fact that the claimant-petitioner is a major, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The amount of compensation lying in the fixed deposits be released to the claimant-petitioner forthwith.

7. Disposed off in the above terms.

Petition allowed.

********