Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5637 of 2017 Petitioner :- Rohit Tiwari Respondent :- Om Narayan And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Chandel
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed quashing the impugned order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, (New), Chitrakoot by which the learned Court below had rejected the petitioner's application to release the compensation money Rs.50,702/- lying in term deposit under the award dated 14.09.2011 passed by that Court in M.A.C.T. No. 95/70 of 2009. Similar claim appears to have been filed by the sister of the present petitioner Ms. Vandana Tiwari for an equal amount that was rejected by a separate order passed by the learned court below is of the date 03.07.2017. That is under challenge in MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5636 of 2017. For ready reference, the fact arising in Matters under Article 227 No. 5637 of 2017 are being noted.
3. Earlier by the award dated 14.09.2011, the learned court below had awarded Rs.2,81,000/-, collectively, to the claimants together with 6 % interest. Of that amount Rs.25,000/- had been released in favour of the father of the present petitioners while the balance amount had been distributed between the three siblings of the deceased being Ms. Bhavna Tiwari, Mr. Rohit Tiwari, and Ms. Vandana Tiwari for a period of five years.
4. In this regard, it is further noted that though the deposit was required to be made on 14.09.2011 for a period of five years, the share of the present petitioner being Rs.50,702/- came to be deposited much later, in the year 2016. Delay was caused because the owner and driver of the offending vehicle deposited that money with much delay in the year 2016. In the meantime a sister of the petitioner Ms. Vandana Tiwari attained marriageable age and her marriage was finalized.
5. In such changed circumstances, the petitioner Rohit Tiwari and also Ms. Vandana Tiwari made separate applications for release of the amount of Rs.50,702/- each (lying in deposit), to meet expenses of marriage of Ms. Vandana Tiwari.
6. While these applications were filed in 28.04.2017 and the marriage was to be performed in June, 2017, the learned court below rejected the said application on 03.07.2017 on the reasoning since the marriage had already taken place (by then), there was no surviving need to release the money.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned court has completely erred in rejecting the application in as much as the need set up by the petitioner was genuine and they were not at fault for the procedural delay.
8. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is seen the money had been awarded only for the benefit of the petitioner on 04.09.2011. It was contemplated the money would be retained for five years from about that date in a term deposit so that it may earn some further interest. However it cannot be denied that the money was meant for the need and use of the petitioner alone.
9. Then for reasons of pending litigation that amount came to be deposited in the year 2016. However in terms of the award, term deposits were created for a period of five years from that date. In the meanwhile, the petitioner who were in need of money being the claimants filed their applications for release of the money.
10. The learned court below has also not doubted, the genuineness and the correctness of the reason cited before it. However, strangely, it has rejected the application by merely stating since the marriage had been performed before the application could be considered, the need did not survive. Such a reasoning can never be accepted once the need was found to be genuine. The application could not be rejected because the petitioners may have met the immediate expenditure involved in the marriage ceremony from other sources.
11. The money of being petitioners, they alone were entitled to its release for their genuine needs. The need for marriage expenses having not been disbelieved, the same was wholly genuine. The learned Court below could not have deprived the petitioners of that money and its benefit because crucial time passed between the applications being filed and order being passed thereon. How the petitioners managed their affairs and from what source and at what cost (of money and dignity), the petitioners may have managed to meet the expenditure of marriage, would remain largely extraneous to the instant proceedings. The learned court below has thus completely misdirected the inquiry made by it and has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in refusing to release the money in favour of the petitioners. The delay caused on account of deposit being made while after five years from the date of the award has been completely ignored by the Tribunal which has resulted in failure of justice.
12. Consequently, the orders dated 03.07.2017 and 14.09.2011 cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. It is further provided that the money may be released forthwith in favour of the petitioners together with the interest that may have accrued therefrom.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 S.Chaurasia