Delhi High Court
Anita vs Sbi Gen Ins Co Ltd & Ors on 19 April, 2018
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.04.2018
+ CM(M) 371/2018
ANITA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anshuman Bal, Adv. with
petitioner in person.
versus
SBI GEN INS CO LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Adv. for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner impugns an order
dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MACT Case No.5604/16,
rejecting her application for pre-mature release of the amount
lying in FDRs in her favour in accordance with the award dated
02.06.2017.
2. The brief facts as set out in the petition are that the
petitioner's husband Late Shri Raj Kumar had met with a fatal
car accident on 12.01.2015 being driven by one Shri Lal
Bahandur. The said offending vehicle was duly insured with
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. respondent No.1.
3. Vide the aforesaid award dated 02.06.2017, the Tribunal
had directed the respondent No.1 to pay a total sum of
Rs.14,61,000/- to the five claimants including the petitioner, as
compensation within 30 days along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e.
01.06.2015. The Tribunal had apportioned the award amount
by directing that 50% of the amount would be given to the
petitioner, 15% each to the two minor children and 10% to both
the parents of the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of
Rs.7 lakhs which was payable to the petitioner at the time of
passing of the award, 50% of the amount i.e. Rs.3.5 lakhs was
directed to be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of 5 years
while 40% amount was to be kept in FDRs to be released to the
petitioner in a phased manner i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month along
with accrued interest thereon and only 10% of the amount was
released to the petitioner at the time of passing of the Award.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the
death of her husband, the petitioner, who is uneducated, is
taking care of her minor children by working as a Medical
Attendant taking care of patients from time to time and is only
earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. He further submits that
the petitioner is paying a rent of about Rs.6,000/- per month and
is, therefore, finding it difficult to take care of her minor
children who are studying in a Government school in Jahangir
Puri. He further submits that in these circumstances, the
petitioner, in order to purchase a freehold land measuring 25 sq.
Yards at Khasra No.14 in Sardanand Colony, Near Balaswa
Dairy, Delhi had moved an application before the Tribunal
praying therein for seeking release of the balance amount lying
in FDRs in her favour to her account being No.37171965867 at
State Bank of India, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi.
6. Vide order dated 6th April, 2018, notice of this petition
was issued to respondent No.1, who is the only contesting
respondent. Mr.Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel enters
appearance for respondent No.1 and fairly does not oppose the
petition.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
interacted with the petitioner who is present in Court, I am of
the view that the petitioner's prayer for premature release of
the amount lying in FDRs in her favour is fully justified. The
petitioner is an uneducated widow who is taking care of her
minor children by staying in a rented accommodation and her
desire to buy a small house to save rent cannot be said to be
unjustified.
8. Even otherwise, I have noticed that even after the release
of the said amount, some amount is lying in the FDRs for the
minor children, so the needs of the minor children would be
taken care of. This Court has repeatedly reiterated while
dealing with such applications, the Tribunal should look into
the matter in a sympathetic manner and keep in mind that while
considering premature release of amount, only factor which is
relevant is the welfare of the legal heirs of the deceased. In my
considered opinion, interest of justice demands that the said
amount lying in the FDRs in the name of the petitioner, ought to
be released to her.
9. The impugned order dated 18th January, 2018, passed by
MACT, Rohini Court, New Delhi in MACT Case
No.5604/2016 is set aside. The petition is allowed. A direction
is issued to the State Bank of India, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi
to release the amount lying in FDRs in the petitioner's name to
her Account No.37171965867.
10. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above
terms.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
APRIL 19, 2018
gm
