The petitioner is claimant in O.P.No.272 of 2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), West Godavari District, Eluru, (hereafter, MACT). He filed the said O.P claiming compensation for the injuries he sustained in a motor accident on 13.10.2006 involving Maruthi Car. He suffered serious injuries. On 14.10.2006 his right leg was amputed and he sustained 60% disability. He also alleged that from the date of the accident till 06.11.2006 he was hospitalized and again from 01.12.2006 to 30.04.2007 he was under treatment in Purna Nursing Home, Nidadavole, as an out patient.

2. MACT after regular enquiry passed award on 06.09.2007. An amount of Rs.6,82,111/- was awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The third respondent (insurer) deposited an amount of Rs.7,27,525/- on 26.12.2007. The petitioner filed an application being I.A.No.1168 of 2008 seeking permission of MACT to withdraw an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- out of the total compensation awarded. In justification of the same, he stated in the affidavit accompanying the said application that he borrowed amounts for treatment including surgery, that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is required for clearing borrowed debts and for artificial leg, that he requires an artificial limb to his leg, that he has to undergo another operation involving cost of Rs.50,000/-, and that as he cannot carry on his Government job as Laskar in Irrigation Department, he desires to commence kirana business in a small way. Along with the application he also produced price quotation of M/s.Chaitanya Artificial Limb Centre, Palakol, for an amount of Rs.55,000/- for the fitment of Knee 'Prosthetis of Ottobock', Germany. Learned MACT, however, passed orders on 23.04.2008 for payment of Rs.50,000/- only. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Besides reiterating the case of the petitioner noticed hereinabove, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India1, which were followed and reiterated in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v Susamma Thomas. He also placed reliance on Chenna Madavuni Prathap Raju v Rayala Rama Rao Chowdhary. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for third respondent - Insurance Company, submits that though for further medical treatment amounts can be released in favour of the claimant or injured person, the Court must ensure that the alleged post operative treatment is not a ruse for withdrawing the amount. He opposes release of any amount for business on the ground that the petitioner is already working as Laskar, and therefore, no further amounts can be released.

4. So as to ensure that the amount of compensation goes to the claimant or the injured person and that such amounts are not misused or misappropriated by interlopers, the apex Court laid down law in the matter of disbursement of the amount deposited in MACT by the insurer or other tort-feasor. A Division Bench of this Court in G.Lakshmamma v Gayaranga Dey4 laid down the guidelines with regard to dealing of the compensation amount. In sum and substance, these indicate that whenever the compensation is deposited in the Court, an amount of only Rs.25,000/- must be directed to be credited to the account of a claimant in the Bank straightaway and the balance amount shall be kept in fixed deposit. The interest amount accrued on the fixed deposit alone must be credited to the claimant's account every quarter or half year, as permissible and as and when they accrue. The claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the amounts deposited to their account. The amount in fixed deposit, either in part or whole, should be released to the claimants, subject to the satisfaction of Tribunal. Again such amount should be released to meet unavoidable expenditure, such as medical expenses, marriage expenses and t