Arvind Kumar @ Arun Vs. Rajkumar @ Raju

Arvind Kumar @ Arun vs Rajkumar @ Raju

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 07, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1050194

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1050194
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jan 07, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arvind Kumar @ Arun

Advocate Shri. Sharad Gupta

Respondent

Rajkumar @ Raju

Excerpt

.....has been allowed and a compensation of rs.1,20,625/- has been granted to the applicant. challenging the award an appeal has been filed by the insurance company namely respondent no.3 before this court under section 173(1) of the motor vehecles act. the said appeal is registered as m.a.no.1796/2012 and is still pending. however, in the pending appeal an interim order was passed on 3.9.2012 directing the insurance company to deposit 50% of the amount awarded. accordingly, the insurance company has deposited a sum of rs.70,019/-. grievance of the petitioner is that a prayer made by the petitioner for withdrawal of the aforesaid amount has been rejected by the court below mainly on the ground that in the interim order passed by this court in the pending appeal, there is no direction for disbursement of the amount. having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that applicant has suffered serious injury on his leg and is undergone treatment and it is his case that for undergoing treatment he has spent certain amount for which he has taken loan from his relatives and he has spent more than rs.30,000/- for treatment purpose. be it as it may, petitioner has suffered injury and only 50% of the amount awarded has been released, there is no reason for not disbursing the amount to the petitioner as he is the only claimant and the award has been made in his favour as compensation for the loss caused to him because of the accident. under such circumstances i see no justification in not disbursing or releasing the amount to the petitioner when he is the sole claimant and he himself has suffered the injury. in view of the above, this petition is allowed. order impugned dated 16.10.2012 passed by the court below is set aside and learned executing court is directed to pay to the petitioner the entire amount deposited (i.e.50% of the total amount) in pursuance to the interim order subject however to the condition that petitioner submits an.....

Full Judgment

W.P.No.19366/2012 7.1.2013: Shri Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner met with an accident and sustained injury.

As a result he raised a claim by filing an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni.

The claim has been allowed and a compensation of Rs.1,20,625/- has been granted to the applicant.

Challenging the award an appeal has been filed by the Insurance company namely respondent No.3 before this Court under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehecles Act.

The said appeal is registered as M.A.No.1796/2012 and is still pending.

However, in the pending appeal an interim order was passed on 3.9.2012 directing the Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the amount awarded.

Accordingly, the insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs.70,019/-.

Grievance of the petitioner is that a prayer made by the petitioner for withdrawal of the aforesaid amount has been rejected by the Court below mainly on the ground that in the interim order passed by this Court in the pending appeal, there is no direction for disbursement of the amount.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that applicant has suffered serious injury on his leg and is undergone treatment and it is his case that for undergoing treatment he has spent certain amount for which he has taken loan from his relatives and he has spent more than Rs.30,000/- for treatment purpose.

Be it as it may, petitioner has suffered injury and only 50% of the amount awarded has been released, there is no reason for not disbursing the amount to the petitioner as he is the only claimant and the award has been made in his favour as compensation for the loss caused to him because of the accident.

Under such circumstances I see no justification in not disbursing or releasing the amount to the petitioner when he is the sole claimant and he himself has suffered the injury.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed.

Order impugned dated 16.10.2012 passed by the Court below is set aside and learned executing Court is directed to pay to the petitioner the entire amount deposited (i.e.50% of the total amount) in pursuance to the interim order subject however to the condition that petitioner submits an undertaking to the effect to refund the amount if any depending upon the final outcome of the pending appeal.

With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

c.c.as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Arvind Kumar @ Arun vs Rajkumar @ Raju Same Subject Land Acquisition