From a perusal of the award, it appears that one of the claimant named as Arti daughter of Suraj Singh has been awarded one lac rupees towards compensation which had been deposited in a fixed deposit account and is lying with the court below.
6. The release application has been filed with the assertion that the petitioner/plaintiff needs the money for setting up her own beauty parlour as she has sufficient experience of such job. The court below has rejected the release application on two grounds. Firstly that no certificate of having done a course of beauty parlour has been filed by the applicant. Secondly that there is a doubt with regard to the identity of the applicant so as to relate her from the claimant in M.A.C.P. Case no. 592 of 2013.
7. In so far as the first ground for rejection of the application is concerned, suffice it to note that the court below could not have rejected the release application on the ground that no certificate was produced by the applicant, in as much as, the course of beauty parlour is not a certified course. It is a course which is in the nature of self employment and no court can take objection to the applicant's prayer to seek money for her need to get self employed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Writ C No. 39076 of 2018
Decided On: 07.01.2019
Arti Vs. Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sunita Agarwal, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. The present petition is directed against the orders dated 23.07.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No. 1 Muzaffar Nagar in Misc. Case No. 491 of 2018 (Arti Vs. Sajjan & others) arising out of M.A.C.P. case No. 592 of 2013 (Smt. Kamlesh & others Vs. Sajjan & others).
4. The applicant/petitioner filed an application for release of the compensation money deposited in a fixed deposit account, which was allegedly awarded to the petitioner vide judgement and order dated 10.07.2017 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.
5. From a perusal of the award, it appears that one of the claimant named as Arti daughter of Suraj Singh has been awarded one lac rupees towards compensation which had been deposited in a fixed deposit account and is lying with the court below.
6. The release application has been filed with the assertion that the petitioner/plaintiff needs the money for setting up her own beauty parlour as she has sufficient experience of such job. The court below has rejected the release application on two grounds. Firstly that no certificate of having done a course of beauty parlour has been filed by the applicant. Secondly that there is a doubt with regard to the identity of the applicant so as to relate her from the claimant in M.A.C.P. Case no. 592 of 2013.
7. In so far as the first ground for rejection of the application is concerned, suffice it to note that the court below could not have rejected the release application on the ground that no certificate was produced by the applicant, in as much as, the course of beauty parlour is not a certified course. It is a course which is in the nature of self employment and no court can take objection to the applicant's prayer to seek money for her need to get self employed.
8. As far as the second ground of rejection is concerned, it is categorically stated in paragraph no. 11 of the present petition that the applicant was unmarried at the time of passing of the award and her address has been changed due to her being shifted in her matrimonial home.
9. This aspect of the matter requires fresh consideration.
10. With that view of the matter, the order dated 23.07.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 491 of 2018 (Arti Vs. Sajjan & others) is hereby set aside. The Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Court no. 1 Muzaffar Nagar is directed to consider the release application a fresh. Simultaneously, it is kept open for the petitioner/applicant to file proof of change of her resident so as to establish her identity before the Court.
11. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the release application expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
12. Subject to the above observations and directions, the present petition is allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment