The court affirmed its limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, allowing petitioners to seek recovery of misappropriated compensation without further directives.

Order :

1. Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were claimants who preferred a claim petition being MAC No.154/2011 under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , for grant of compensation on account of accidental death of their husband/father viz. Late Nathu Singh(deceased). In that claim petition, vide award dated 26.02.2016, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.15,44,216/-. Thereagainst, petitioners as also the Insurance Company preferred two separate appeals being S.B. CMA No.3412/2016 & S.B. CMA No.2640/2016. Both appeals were heard together and have been dismissed by the High Court vide common judgment dated 24.09.2018.

2. Counsel for petitioners have raised a grievance that the compensation amount so awarded in favour of petitioners has not been disbursed to petitioners as only 25% of such amount was disbursed and remaining 75% amount was kept in FDR. Those FDRs have been broken by the concerned Reader of the Claim Tribunal and he misappropriated/grabbed that amount for his personal use and in that connection one FIR No.59/2024 at Police Station Kekri Shehar, Kekri for offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120-B and 201 of IPC has been lodged as much as in such criminal proceedings, the accused, namely, Kamal Kisor Bhati has been arrested and presently he is in judicial custody. Counsel for the petitioners has made a prayer that such amount be directed to be disbursed to the petitioners.

3. Having considered the aforesaid contentions and prayer of the petitioners, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the insurance company has deposited the entire compensation amount so awarded in favour of the petitioners. The 25% of compensation amount have already been disbursed to the petitioners. The dispute is in respect of remaining 75%, which according to the petitioners have been embezzled/grabbed by the person namely Kamal Kisor Bhati, against whom FIR has already been registered and criminal proceedings are in the process against him.

In that view of the matter, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not required to pass any further directions except granting liberty to the petitioners to proceed for recovery of such amount from the persons who have grabbed/misappropriated such amount of petitioners, in accordance with law.

4. In view of above, instant writ petition stands disposed of.

5. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.