Vibha Gaur And ANR v. Oritental Bank Of Commerce

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.19.09.2016 Vibha Gaur and another .......Petitioners Vs.

Oriental Bank of Commerce ........Respondent

Present:

Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL 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? -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula vide award dated 09.10.2015 awarded an amount of `80 lacs, however, the aforementioned award has been challenged by the Oriental Insurance Company whereby this Court in FAO bearing No.2562 of 2016 passed an order dated 04.05.2016, extracted in the order impugned dated 30.08.2016, granted the stay subject to deposit of `30 lacs along with interest within six weeks for disbursement to the claimant and stayed the remaining amount. He submits that pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the following FDRs have been lying deposited in the bank viz-a-viz the claim of claimant Nos.1 and 4:- FDR No.

In the name of Amount deposited in rupees 206700 Vibha Gaur 70885 206701 -do70885 206702 -do70885 206704 -do70885 206705 -do70885

-2FDR No.

In the name of Amount deposited in rupees 206706 -do70885 206707 -do70885 206716 -do70885 Total 8 FDRs 567080 206698 Janak Raj 64251 206717 Janak Raj 64251 206718 Janak Raj 64251 206719 Janak Raj 64251 Total 4 FDRs 257004/- However, the Court below in pursuance of the application has only ordered for release of FDRs in part. He submits that the amount could not have been withheld as the insurance company has complied with the interim order.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that no doubt in the application, there are certain averments made for releasing of the amount viz-a-viz having obtained the loan but the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, much less, order payment in part in the absence of particulars of the loan transaction. Once order of the High Court dated 04.05.2016 is clear for disbursement, it cannot hold back the FDRs according to its own sweet will. It tantamounts to increasing the agony of the claimants who have already suffered at the hands of destiny on account of death of loved ones.

Though the impugned order partly allowed the application for granting permission to the petitioners to withdraw the amount in respect of the FDRs mentioned therein, there is clear cut direction that the Court can not withhold the same. In view of the aforementioned, the impugned order is set aside. The FDRs aforementioned deposited by the insurance company in the Oriental Bank of Commerce are ordered to be released to the petitioner forthwith subject to furnishing of indemnity along with interest, if any.

-3The revision petition is allowed with the above modification. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 19, 2016 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No