Sahil Kumar v. Ld Mact And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1130 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.24.02.2016 Sahil Kumar .......Petitioner Vs.

Ld. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kaithal and another ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Jasmer Singh Rozera, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner's grievance is that on attaining the majority, he has not been allowed to withdraw whole of the amount that is lying in the court deposit. The order already passed is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw whole of the amount which is lying in deposit subject to the issuance of undertaking. 2.

Notice to the respondents is dispensed with, for the insurance company cannot have any objection as regards the manner of disbursal of the amount which is already awarded in favour of the claimants. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner as indicated above.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 24, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.02.25 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document