- (1.) THE petitioner has come up with a prayer to command the respondents not to withhold Rs. 89745/- deposited by the Insurance Company in terms of the compromise and to disburse the same to him forthwith with interest on the ground that even though there was no compromise between the parties before the Tribunal that the aforementioned amount shall be deposited in fixed deposit account in any Nationalised Bank, yet the learned Special Judge, Mirzapur has committed an apparent error of law in directing deposit of the said amount in a fixed deposit account for five years in any Nationalised Bank.
(2.) SRI S. K. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the respondent No. 1 be commanded to direct return of the aforementioned amount along with interest to the petitioner. Sri K. S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that since the petitioner has not brought on record the compromise, which he had entered with the Insurance Company, therefore, he is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The relevant facts are as follows - The petitioner and the Insurance Company had entered into a compromise in Lok Adalat in terms of which the latter deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to disburse to the petitioner as compensation, yet respondent No. 1 disbursed only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to him, charged Rs. 255/- as recovery amount and withheld an amount of Rs. 89,745/-, there is no provision for withholding the amount of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner who has been suffering from protracted illness and for his medical treatment his father had mortgaged land to two persons to obtain huge amount and only with a view to pay the amount aforementioned he entered into the compromise with the Insurance Company but due to withholding of that amount he can neither repay the loan nor his lands could be released not having been disputed as incorrect either by the respondents by filing Counter or even otherwise, we are of the view that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were not at all justified in not paying the entire amount as agreed between the parties and if the respondents are not commanded, there shall be failure of justice.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, we dispose of this writ petition with this direction to respondent No 1 that he shall make to withdraw the invested amount in a fixed deposit and pay to the petitioner expeditiously that amount preferably within three months from today. However, as from the tenor of the order it appears that respondent No. 1 had proceeded to pass his order considering the age of the petitioner being tender, we will not be justified in issuing a direction in regard to payment of interest on that amount more so when liberty was also granted to the petitioner to withdraw the interest every year. No cost of this proceeding either.;