Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Uttarakhand High Court

Km. Sumita Yadav @ Sumetry vs Motor Accident Claim Tribunal / ... on 17 December, 2013

Author: B.S.Verma

Bench: B.S.Verma

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                     AT NAINITAL

                Writ Petition No. 2815 of 2013 (M/S)

Km. Sumita Yadav @ Sumetry                          .............. Petitioner.

                                       vs.

Motor Accident Claim Tribunal / District Judge, Nainital
and others                                 ...........Respondents.


Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate for the
respondent bank.

Hon'ble B.S.Verma, J.

Heard.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order dated 04.09.2013, passed in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2013, whereby the learned M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/Special Judge (C.B.I.) rejected the application of the petitioner for payment of interest on the F.D.R. No. 072534 from the date of its making till 08.05.2013; direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the interest in F.D.R. No. Q.D.B. 072534 of `46,942/- of P.N.B. Nainital Branch from the date of its production i.e. 17.08.1995 till 08.05.2013 and direction to respondent no.1 to make an inquire and fixed the liability to a person by whom negligence and inaction, petitioner could not get the actual amount and further be please to direct to the respondent to pay compensation of `2,00,000/- to the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the leaned M.A.C.T. Tribunal vide order dated 30.08.1994, has directed the amount of the share of the claimant no.3 Km. Sumita Yadav be kept in F.D.R. in some nationalized bank till her majority. In compliance of the Tribunal's order, an F.D.R. amounting of `46,952/- has been prepared on 17.08.1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that F.D.R. was made initially for a period of 02 years, which was not revised thereafter. The amount was not paid by the bank and total amount was paid of `77,569/-, which is not the entire interest paid from the date of making the fixed deposit before passing any final order.

In this case, this Court deems proper to sought some information from the M.A.C.T. concerned through District Judge that why the fix deposits have not been revised. It was the duty of the court concerned and for that who is the responsible employee for which fault the claimant is suffering. The information be submitted to this Court within a period of six weeks. The District Judge shall also enquire into the matter, who was the concerned employee for whose fault, the petitioner is suffering.

List in the week commencing 10.02.2014. Registry is directed to sent the copy of this order to the District Judge, Nainital for compliance of the Court's order.

(B.S.Verma,J.) 17.12.2013 Sanjay