Telangana High Court
CRP/5826/2010 of Shaik Chand Bee Vs J.Krishna Naidu on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No.5826 of 2010 31st December, 2010 Between :- Shaik Chand Bee .. Petitioner And J.Krishna Naidu and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No.5826 of 2010 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASADC.R.P.No.5826 of 2010
31stDecember, 2010
Between :-
Shaik Chand Bee .. Petitioner
And
J.Krishna Naidu and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASADC.R.P.No.5826 of 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order inI.A.No.1284 of 2010 in O.P.No.406 of 2006 on the file of the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 11-8-2010 by which the revision petitioner was permitted to withdrawRs.5,000/- only on proper identification.
The 1[st] respondent – owner of the vehicle was stated to be not anecessary party to the Civil Revision Petition. None enteredappearance on behalf of the second respondent who deposited theamount to the credit of the matter though notice of the revision wasserved on the Branch Manager/Insurer.
Heard Sri K.Sarath, the learned Counsel for the revisionpetitioner.
The factual background for the revision is that the revision petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident involving thecar of the 1[st] respondent insured with the 2[nd] respondent and she filedO.P.No.406 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nalgonda, which was ordered after enquiry on 15-7-2009 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,21,250/- with interest at 7½% per annum and costs. Out of the compensation amount soawarded, the revision petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.25,000/-only and the balance amount was ordered to be kept in Fixed Depositin any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The Awardshows that the revision petitioner sustained multiple fractures in the leftlower leg and left humerus and was adversely affected by theconsequences of the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunalfound the revision petitioner to have suffered 35% disability and therevision petitioner after withdrawing Rs.25,000/- as per orders inI.A.No.509/2010 dated 13-4-2010, filed the present application inI.A.No.1284/2010 to relax the condition to keep the amount in FixedDeposit for a period of three years as she wanted to develop the Chillyand Flour Mill by constructing R.C.C. roof and by installing a newmachine as she was unable to do work in the Mill now in a tin shed.
It is on that request that the impugned order was passedpermitting the revision petitioner to withdraw Rs.5,000/- only withoutassigning any reasons for not accepting the request of the revisionpetitioner. The revision petitioner claims in this revision that thelivelihood of the petitioner and her maintenance depend on runningthe Chilly and Flour Mill and because of her poor health as a result ofthe grievous injuries sustained in the road accident, she is unable torun the Mill in the tin shed and requires the money for improvement ofthe structure.
When the source of livelihood of the revision petitioner being running of the Chilly and Flour Mill was noted even in the Awardgranting the compensation and when as a consequence of theaccident she was disabled by 35%, her desire to improve the Chillyand Flour Mill by constructing R.C.C. Roof and by installing a newmachine is but, very reasonable and just. The Tribunal should havetaken into consideration all the attendant facts and circumstances inconsidering the said petition, as the object of keeping the amount ofcompensation in Fixed Deposit also is only to help the injured-claimant but not to indulge in any mechanical deprivation of thebenefits of the award to her. So, while keeping back a reasonable sumto be paid to her on expiry of three years from the date of the originalAward as reasonably ordered, a reasonable sum has to be provided tothe revision petitioner to help her make improvements to her Mill.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 11-8-2010 inI.A.No.1284/2010 in O.P.No.406 of 2006, is modified by directing theTribunal to retain a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) tobe kept in Fixed Deposit again till the expiry of three years from 15-7-2009, the date of the Award, from out of the amount available to thecredit of the matter and disburse the rest of the principal sum andinterest which accrued till now to the revision petitioner on properidentification.
The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
31[st] December, 2010smr
________________________
G.Bhavani Prasad, J