IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.50685 OF 2018 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
Smt.Bhagyamma, D/o. Late Narasimhaiah, Aged about 35 years, Residing at Kachamaranahalli Village, Kunjur Post, Varthur Hobli, Benglauru-560 087. … Petitioner (By Sri. H.Sunil Kumar, Advocate) AND:
The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office No.22, D.V.G.Road, V.C.Plaza, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560 004. … Respondent This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MVC No.5129/2007 vide Annexure-C in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.H.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Taking into account the order, which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-11) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.5129/2007, by which out of a sum of Rs.4,05,000/-, the Tribunal has directed to keep a sum of Rs.1 lakh each in fixed deposit in favour of the petitioners therein and has further directed the Tribunal to disburse the remaining amount to the petitioners therein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a widow and works as an agricultural labourer and is unable to make both the ends meet. Therefore, she is in need of money.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order was passed on 19.08.2017 i.e., before one year and five months. On account of lapse of time, I deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to move an application seeking disbursement of the amount/modification of the order dated 19.08.2017 by assigning reasons in the application.
5. It is needless to state that in case such an application is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law by a speaking order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
dn/-
Sd/- JUDGE