( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner herein, who seeks to assail the docket order dated 22-11-2004 passed in. A. No. 1133 of 2004 in O. P. No. 235 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District judge, Chittoor, granting permission to withdraw a sum of Rs. 30,000-00 as against her share amount of Rs. 84,725-00.

( 2 ) MR. T. C. KRISHNAN, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have allowed the application in toto but the claims Tribunal committed illegality in allowing the Interlocutory application in part, having convinced with the material available on record, permitted the petitioner to withdraw Rs. 30,000-00 and directed to fix (sic. keep) the balance amount in FD for a period of one year. The Revision Petitioner submitted before the Claims Tribunal that due to severe drought conditions prevailing for the last five years she incurred several debts and also the amount lying in the fixed deposit is very much necessary to construct a house in the place of dilapidated tiled house.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the Revision petitioner seeks to place reliance on a udgment of the Apex Court wherein a substantially similarly fact situation, fell for the consideration in H. S. Ahammed Hussain and another v. Irian Ahammed and others, wherein the Apex Court observed that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the mothers should not be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. In case the amounts have not been already invested, the same shall be paid to the mothers, but if, however, invested by depositing the same in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank, there may be its premature withdrawal in case the parties so intend.

( 4 ) WHILE relying on the above authority, the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner sought for the interference of this court and prayed to direct the Claims tribunal to release her share amount, which is lying in fixed deposit.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision Petitioner. Though notice served on the second respondent on 25-2-2005 but there is no appearance on his behalf either in-person or through counsel. After hearing the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner, I have gone through the order impugned. Though the Claims Tribunal observed in its order that it is convinced with the material available on record but granted permission to withdraw a sum of rs. 30,000-00 out of her share amount of rs. 84,725-00 which was awarded in O. P. No. 235 of 2000 on account of the death of her son, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 14-3-2000 and the Claims Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record awarded a sum of Rs. 1,71,000-00 including no-fault liability. The awarded amount of compensation was apportioned equally between the petitioner and her husband. By virtue of the deposit made by the respondents, the entire amount of compensation was kept in fixed deposit. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that due to drought situation prevailing in her district, the petitioner incurred heavy debts and moreover she is inclined to construct a new house in the place of tiled house. The main inclination of the revision petitioner is that she wants to construct a new house in the place of old house during her lifetime. The Revision petitioner is aged about 50 years and she is in dire need of financial assistance and to meet the domestic exigencies, she has requested to permit her to withdraw her share amount.

( 6 ) IN H. S. Ahammed Hussain and another v. Irfan Ahammed and others (stated supra-1), the Apex Court has laid down law that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the mother should not be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. In case the amounts have not been already invested, the same shall be paid to the mothers, but if, however, in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document