Mitthulal Sahu vs Bahadur Singh

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the final order dated 24.8.2013 passed by MACT, Vidisha in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 65/2011 by which an application seeking withdrawal of the amount of compensation of Rs. 32,7,000/- pursuant to the award of the MACT passed in favour of the claimants/petitioners herein who are parents of the deceased, has been rejected. The Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

The application for payment of the amount of compensation was made by the parents/petitioner herein on the ground that amount of about three lakhs has been spent for solemnizing marriage of their daughter (sister of the deceased).

The prayer has been rejected by the court below on three grounds. The first being that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioners has already been held and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded as interim compensation to the petitioners.

Perusal of the impugned order of the Court below does not indicate as to why reasons of marriage of the daughter is not found to be justified. Merely because the marriage has been held and the release of the amount is sought subsequent thereof, cannot alone be a sufficient reason to reject the prayer for release of the amount of compensation locked in Term Deposit.

The ground of receipt of interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- can also be a ground as the said interim compensation was granted to the petitioners in 2011 itself when the accident took place which was much prior to the marriage.

The Tribunal has also held that petitioners are receiving interest of the term deposit.

The ground of the petitioner receiving interest over the Term Deposits also cannot be accepted as the same can never be sufficient for meeting the expanses incurred to solemnize marriage which in the present social set up is an extremely expensive affair.

Since the reasons assigned by the Court below are neither cogent nor tenable in law, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.8.2013 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 65/2011 is set aside with a direction to the concerned MACT to hear and decide the application preferred by the petitioners in its true prospective by taking into account the law and various judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma and Others Vs. R. Venugopal and Others, . No order as to costs.