Delhi High Court
Geeta @ Gita Devi vs Uco Bank Karkardooma Court ... on 6 March, 2017
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2036/2017 & CM 8985/2017
GEETA @ GITA DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Dalip Kumar Santoshi, Advocate
with petitioner in person.
versus
UCO BANK KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX DELHI
..... Respondent
Through : Md. Khairul Hussain, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 06.03.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for issuing directions to UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch to release a
sum of Rs.2,10,527/- placed in a FDR in terms of an order passed in the
MACT proceedings.
2. Prior to filing the present petition, the petitioner had approached the
learned MACT court asking for pre-mature release of the FDR. The said
application was however rejected vide order dated 28.1.2017 wherein, it was
recorded that an accident had taken place on 3.6.2015, when the petitioner's
husband had lost his life. A sum of Rs.11,65,000/- was paid as compensation
to his family members in the course of the MACT proceedings. Out of the
aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.5,57,500/- was released in favour of the
petitioner on 19.1.2016 and 3.2.2016. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.50,000/-
was released in favour of the petitioner on 2.5.2016. Subsequently, a FDR
of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn in favour of the minor son of the petitioner, was also
released on maturity. In all, by now the petitioner has received a sum of
Rs.8,07,500/- from out of the total compensation of Rs.11,65,000/-. Noting
that no details have been furnished by the petitioner as to where and how the
aforesaid amount has been spent, the learned trial court has rejected her
request for release of the balance amount on the ground that she needs the
funds for the marriage of her son and daughter schedule for tomorrow.
3. Counsel for the petitioner states that the money received by the
petitioner earlier was used towards undertaking some construction work in
the residential premises. The said submission is however contrary to the
averments made in para 7 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioner has
specifically stated that the said amounts were spent in paying back the
money that had been borrowed by her deceased husband, without a shred of
document filed on record to substantiate the said averment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been called upon to give the
details of the family members left behind by Late Shripal (husband of the
petitioner). The Court is informed that apart from his widow, the petitioner
herein, he is survived by four children out of whom, one is already married,
the marriage of two children (a son and daughter) is scheduled for tomorrow
and there is a school going son aged 14 years.
5. Merely because of two of the petitioner's children are to get married
tomorrow, would not be a ground to interfere in the impugned order. The
trial court is justified in observing that the purpose of awarding the
compensation is to put the family members of the deceased in the same
financial position as they would have been had the deceased been alive and
from the compensation received, his family members would have continued
to receive a portion of his income every month, but not in a lump sum
fashion.
6. If the remaining amount lying with the Bank is also directed to be
released in favour of the petitioner right away, there will be nothing left for a
fall back. Even the education of the minor son is likely to be jeopardised. In
view of the above facts and circumstances, the prayer made in the petition is
declined. The writ petition is dismissed along with the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MARCH 06, 2017
sk/ap
