Piyush GuptA. Vs. the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur and anr.

[mr. justice b.s. patil, j.] this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of mv act. against the judgment and award dated: 29/1 1/2006 passed in mvc no. 4382/2004 on the file of the xi additional judge. court of small causes. member. mact, metropolitan area. bangalore. (scch-12), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation with 12% interest......one year of imprisonment and was further directed to pay a compensation of rs.2,81,000/- vide judgment dated 24.01.2007.2. aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned judge. the judge while suspending the sentence directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the pecuniary punishment i.e. rs.70,000/-. the petitioner did so. however, subsequently the respondent no.2, mr. chandra mohan yadav, filed an application before the learned judge praying that the said amount should be disbursed to him. 3. therefore, vide order dated 27.03.2008, the learned judge directed that the said amount shall be disbursed to respondent no.2 provided he gives a surety for the same. according to the learned counsel, the amount should, in fact, have been kept in a nationalized bank, instead of being disbursed. 4. moreover, in case the petitioner were to succeed in his appeal, he would have to recover the said amount from respondent no.2. heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order.5. both the contentions raised by the learned counsel are misplaced for the simple reason that the learned judge has asked the respondent no.2 to give surety for the amount disbursed to him. in case the petitioner were to succeed in his appeal, obviously the amount would have to be returned to him along with interest thereon. therefore, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment.6. this petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed