Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vinod Kurmi vs Ashok Kumar Patel on 1 April, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15746




                                                              1                                   MP-665-2025
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR

                                                         BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                    ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025


                                                 MISC. PETITION No. 665 of 2025
                                                     VINOD KURMI
                                                        Versus
                                             ASHOK KUMAR PATEL AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                               Shri Aman Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                                               ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to release the fixed deposit amount of the awarded compensation for the reason that no specific reason has been mentioned in the application and with a further reason that the petitioner has purchased a house vide agreement Annexure P/3 i.e.the agriculture land contained in Survey No.12/1/1/1 measuring 0.685 Hectare from one Shri Raghuraj Singh Thakur for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and, therefore, it is prayed that the amount of compensation be released in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas AIR 1994 SC 1631 and reading Paragraph No.23 of the said judgment, he contends that in Clause (iii) it is mentioned that in the case of semi-literate persons, the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding and existing business or for purchasing some property as mentioned

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15746

2 MP-665-2025 in (ii) above for earning his livelihood, in which case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of compensation be allowed to be withdrawn for payment towards purchase of the said agriculture land.

A perusal of Clause (ii) of Paragraph No.23 of General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas (supra), which is referred to in Clause (iii), provides that "in the case of illiterate claimants also, the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw, etc, to earn a living, the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money".

Thus, when examined in terms of Paragraph No.23 of General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas (supra) then the purchase of agriculture land measuring 0.685 Hectare i.e. about 1.25 Acre will not fall within the meaning and purpose of earning livelihood. The impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed by learned XX Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in M.A.C.C No.3069/2023 refusing for encashment of the fixed deposit receipt cannot be faulted with.

Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

amit