Delhi High Court
Kishan Suzi And Ors vs Budh Singh @ Malkit And Ors on 6 May, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 06.05.2016
+ CM(M) 433/2016
KISHAN SUZI AND ORS
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. C M Thapliyal, Mr. S P Paul and
Ms. Kiran Lata Pal, Advs.
versus
BUDH SINGH @ MALKIT AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. for Ms.
Suman Bagga, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 27.01.2014 the petitioners, being parents, had
been granted compensation in the sum of Rs.6,70,250/- each on account of
death of their bachelor son Vikas Suzi by the motor accident claims tribunal
(tribunal). Out of the said awarded amount, Rs.4 lakhs each falling to the
share of the petitioners were put in fixed deposit receipts, one half each for
the period of three years and six years respectively. The petitioners claim to
have entered into an agreement to purchase an immoveable property
(residential) for a total consideration of Rs.6 lakhs from one Raja son of
Hazi Shaukat Ali resident of village Pavosadakpur Loni, District Ghaziabad,
U.P. The claimants submit that they have already paid Rs.11,000/- as
earnest money to the seller and the balance consideration of Rs.5,89,000/- is
to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, the date
for which has been specified in the agreement to be 18.04.2016. It is,
however, also clarified that though the last date by which the sale deed was
to be executed has lapsed, the seller is still ready and willing to proceed with
the transaction.
2. Claiming that they do not have any other resource to finance the
purchase of the said house, the petitioners had approached the tribunal for
release of the money held in fixed deposit receipts. The said prayer was
declined by the tribunal by order dated 17.03.2016, which is impugned by
the petition at hand. The tribunal was of the view that the approach of the
petitioners was not proper as they had gone ahead to enter into the
transaction without seeking prior permission for such utilization of the
money.
3. Given the background facts noted above, issue notice to the third
respondent (insurer) which has admitted the liability to indemnify and was
burdened with the responsibility to satisfy the award granted by the tribunal
by judgment dated 27.01.2014. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate appears and
accepts notice on behalf of third respondent. Only the third respondent
needs to be heard. Heard both sides. Perused.
4. Whilst the observations of the tribunal in the impugned order about
the conduct seem to be well justified, given the urgent necessity explained
by the counsel for the petitioners and the fact that the first petitioner is
earning his livelihood as a tailor, sufficient for survival of self with wife, the
prayer is granted. In order, however, to ensure that the release of money
from the fixed deposit receipts is not misutilized, it is directed that the
tribunal shall arrange for release of the amount of Rs.6 lakhs in equal
proportions from out of the fixed deposit receipts held in the names of the
two petitioners with the bank by appropriate instruments payable in favour
of the seller of the immoveable property, to be handed over to him only at
the time of execution and registration of the sale deed of the house in favour
of the petitioners before the concerned Registrar.
5. The petition is disposed of with above directions.
6. Order dasti.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 06, 2016
VLD
