- (1.) Submission is that petitioner has already lost her husband and daughter, whereafter Tribunal has allowed the claim for compensation and a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- alone has been decreed, and only a part thereof has been released. Submission is that in order to ensure sustenance, petitioner intends to start a business for which the entire amount is required. An application to that effect, consequently, was filed. The Tribunal has rejected the application holding the petitioner's prayer not to be permissible in terms of the decree.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the decision of this Court in the Case of Yogendra Singh v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and Ors, 2005 2 TAC 312 , wherein this Court interalia has held as follows: "3. The petitioner, although did not challenge the said conditions imposed in the said award, however, subsequently he has now moved an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for encashment of the Fixed Deposit Receipts which pertained to the money which was invested under the order of the Tribunal dated 19th August, 2000. The application so filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Tribunal by means of order dated 5th January, 2005 on the ground that the earlier order of the Tribunal has become final and the money is to be paid only in accordance with the directions issued under the award. 4. In the opinion of the Court the order passed by the Tribunal dated 5th January, 2005 is patently misconceived. The money as invested under the award dated 19th August, 2000 is the property of the petitioner. It is always open to the petitioner, who is major, to encash the same in the manner he likes. Neither the Tribunal nor the Insurance Company has any right to object to encashment of the money by the petitioner which was invested in view of the award of the Tribunal. If there is loss of interest on premature encashment of the Fixed Deposit Receipts it is at the risk of the petitioner. 5. In view of the above the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 5th January, 2005 is set aside and it is directed that the Tribunal shall re-consider the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove, within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Tribunal, and shall pass appropriate orders. "
(3.) The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the aforementioned case.? Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed today, notice need not be issued to respondent no. 2. The writ petition is being decided, at this stage, with liberty reserved to the respondent no. 2 to make his submission before the Tribunal itself.;