IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.16016/2019 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
SRI. NANJUNDAPPA S/O. LATE LAKSHMANA BOVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O. C/O. SHANKARAPPA KURUBARAHALLI BASAVESHWARNAGAR BENGALURU. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K., ADV.) AND:
1. MRS. U. SELVI W/O. UTHIRASWAMY MAJOR IN AGE R/O. 2/206, PALPAKKI KOMALIYUR PALPAKKI POST, OMALUR SALEM-636 455 TAMIL NADU (RC OWNER OF TATA TIPPER LORRY BEARING REG.NO.TN-30-AZ-3357) 2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE PRESTIGE CORNICHE NO.63/1, 2ND FLOOR RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE-26. ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2018 ANNEXURE-C PASSED ON I.A. FOR RELEASE OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT AMOUNT IN M.V.C.NO.7180/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SMALL CAUSES COURT AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. K.Vishwanatha, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 14.09.2018 by which application filed by the petitioner seeking disbursement of the amount of compensation has been rejected.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner sustained injuries in the road accident on 14.05.2009. The petitioner was awarded a sum of Rs.7,06,802/- by way of compensation. Out of the award amount, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was ordered to be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of 5 years. Thereafter the petitioner made an application for disbursement of the amount of compensation in order to meet the expenses of marriage of his daughter.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (‘the MACT’ for short) by an order dated 20.01.2012 has allowed the aforesaid application and released a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter a further sum of Rs.75,000/- was again released in favour of the petitioner by order dated 22.06.2013. Thus, in all out of the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- has already been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter once again filed application seeking disbursement of the entire FD amount for making payment to the persons from whom the petitioner had borrowed on account of marriage of his daughter. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the MACT, Bengaluru on the ground that earlier an amount Rs.1,50,000/- has already been released for the same reason.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is evident that out of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- has already been released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has sought for disbursal of the entire amount which has been kept in Fixed Deposit. The petitioner has not produced any document to show the purpose for which he is seeking release of the FD amount. Therefore, the application has been rejected.
5. The impugned order dated 14.09.2018 passed by the learned MACT, Bengaluru neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of it warranting interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423].
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/-