High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP227/657/2018dismissed

Vasudev Rao Auchar v. Ram Sai Yadav

2018-12-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 657 of 2018 Vasudev Rao Auchar S/o Late Narayan Rao Auchar, Aged About 24 Years R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Katora Talab, Raipur, Permanent R/o Village Hardi (Kundel) Magarlod District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ............[Claimant No. 2] ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Ram Sai Yadav Shri Parmeshwar Yadav, Through - Father Parmeshwar Yadav, R/o Jhara Bahal, Police Station - Devbhog, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Motor Cycle No. CG 04/KQ 2743)

2. Mohd Amanullah Shri Mohd Harun Aged About 28 Years R/o Devbhog Colony Police Station Devbog District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Motor Cycle No. CG 04/KQ 2743)

3. I C I C I Lombard , General Insurance Company Limited, Through The Authorized Officer, Divisional Manager, I C I C I Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Commercial Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Motor Cycle No. CG 04/KQ 2743)

4. Smt. Shashi Bai Auchar, W/o Late Narayan Rao Auchar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Katora Talab Raipur Permanent R/o - Village Hardi ( Kundel ) Magarlod District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 1) --- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.

For Respondents :

None.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 01/12/18 1.

The petitioner is claimant before the Claims Tribunal. 2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner for disbursement of amount of Rs. 1

Lakh deposited as FDR in nationalized Bank has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal by impugned order dated 10.04.2018 against which this writ petition has been preferred.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

From the perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the Claims Tribunal has rightly declined to grant compensation to the petitioner as he is already serving on compassionate appointment after the death of his father. As such, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 4.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh petition assigning valid and sufficient reasons for withdrawal of the award amount.

SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka