Bhonri Devi Vs. Presiding Officer

Bhonri Devi vs Presiding Officer

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 04, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/770955

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/770955
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Prem Shanker Asopa, J.
Decided On: Jan 04, 2006
Subject: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhonri Devi

Respondent

Presiding Officer

Legal References

Reported In: III(2006)ACC330

Excerpt

- .....(fast-track no. 6), jaipur city, jaipur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for premature release of the f.d.r. no. 983143 amounting to rs. 1,85,000 for payment of purchase of agricultural land has been rejected.2. briefly stated the facts of the case are that in claim application filed by the petitioner and her son lai chand, an award of rs. 6,54,268 was passed, out of which three different f.d.rs. were made and one of the f.d.r. was of a sum of rs. 1,85,000 in the name of the petitioner. with a view to earn some livelihood, the petitioner entered into an agreement for purchase of agricultural land and a copy of the said agreement was filed with the application along with an affidavit.3. the said application was rejected vide impugned order on the ground that the amount claimed in the application was deposited in fixed f.d.r. for future necessity, therefore, the same be not released in the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage. further the purchase of the agricultural land is not justified.4. the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that with a view to earn livelihood, the said agricultural land was purchased, therefore, the petitioner was justified in filing the application for pre-maiure release of the said f.d.r. a copy of the agreement along with the affidavit was placed on the record of m.a.c.t., jaipur. under such circumstances, the rejection of the application is not justified.5. i have carefully perused the writ petition and documents annexed therewith and considered the submissions of the petitioner. the writ petition has been filed only against the presiding officer to whom notices were issued and duly served, hence service is complete.6. in my view the rejection of the application of the petitioner is resulting in deprivation of the. purchase of agricultural land for her livelihood, which is not justified. the impugned order dated 17.5.2005 is liable to be quashed.7. in the result, the writ petition is allowed. the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Prem Shanker Asopa, J.

1. By the instant petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.5.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) (Fast-Track No. 6), Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for premature release of the F.D.R. No. 983143 amounting to Rs. 1,85,000 for payment of purchase of agricultural land has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in Claim Application filed by the petitioner and her son Lai Chand, an Award of Rs. 6,54,268 was passed, out of which three different F.D.Rs. were made and one of the F.D.R. was of a sum of Rs. 1,85,000 in the name of the petitioner. With a view to earn some livelihood, the petitioner entered into an agreement for purchase of agricultural land and a copy of the said agreement was filed with the application along with an affidavit.

3. The said application was rejected vide impugned order on the ground that the amount claimed in the application was deposited in fixed F.D.R. for future necessity, therefore, the same be not released in the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage. Further the purchase of the agricultural land is not justified.

4. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that with a view to earn livelihood, the said agricultural land was purchased, therefore, the petitioner was justified in filing the application for pre-maiure release of the said F.D.R. A copy of the agreement along with the affidavit was placed on the record of M.A.C.T., Jaipur. Under such circumstances, the rejection of the application is not justified.

5. I have carefully perused the writ petition and documents annexed therewith and considered the submissions of the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed only against the Presiding Officer to whom notices were issued and duly served, hence service is complete.

6. In my view the rejection of the application of the petitioner is resulting in deprivation of the. purchase of agricultural land for her livelihood, which is not justified. The impugned order dated 17.5.2005 is liable to be quashed.

7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.5.2005 is quashed and set-aside. The case is remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, with a direction to pass order in the light of the observations made herein-above regarding the premature release of the F.D.R. No. 983143 amounting to Rs. 1,85,000 within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2006 Same Parties Bhonri Devi vs Presiding Officer Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge Prem Shanker Asopa, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles