Mr. Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.05.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1137/14.

3. The petitioners are claimants in MAC Case No. 1137/14 and have prayed for compensation on account of death of Bangshidhar Thakuria who was the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and the father of the petitioner No. 2 who was knocked down by a truck while walking on the road and he succumbed to the injuries.

4. As per the said claimed petition was allowed and a sum of Rs. 7,67,800/- was awarded as compensation to the petitioner No. 1, directing the respondent No. 3 i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited to pay the compensation along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. In the said judgment dated 07.01.2016 it was further provided that a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- would be invested in two long term fixed deposit of equal amounts in the name of the petitioner No. 1 in a nationalized bank of her locality, restraining the bank not to permit any loan or advance on the said fixed deposits and further restraining the bank not to allow premature withdrawal of the fixed deposits without prior written permission of the Tribunal.

5. The petitioners by filing a petition, being petition No. 2562 dated 24.05.2016 prayed for allowing them to withdraw the whole awarded sum on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 was an old lady suffering from various illness and after the death of her husband, the petitioner No. 2 had no source of income for which he intended to run a business and both of them had to repay the loan to the Tata Motor Finance per month on an installment basis of Rs. 10,800/- per month against the loan, as the said loan was availed by their predecessor-in-interest Late Bangshidhar Thakuria and they intended to repay the entire loan amount.

6. The learned Tribunal by order dated 25.05.2016 rejected the said petition on the ground that it would amount to review of the judgment and further it was observed that the petitioners had not filed a review application within the time, if at all, they found the conditions were harsh to her without waiting for about 4 (four) months to file this instant petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner had no other source of livelihood, the conditions which were imposed were harsh and moreover, the Court granted liberty that the disbursement should not be made by the bank in the absence of the specific order, it gave prerogative to the petitioner to apply before the Tribunal for an order for release of the amount and such a prayer could not be said to be an application for review.

8. None appears on call for the respondent although notice has been duly served.

9. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that as per the judgment dated 07.01.2016 passed in MAC Case No. 1137/15, it was projected case of the petitioner that the deceased was the only earning member and therefore the learned Tribunal being satisfied as to the loss of dependency of the petitioner No. 1, she is granted the compensation to her. It is seen in the judgment, that the learned Tribunal had recorded at the time of cross-examination that she was 56 years old. Therefore, when the projected case of the petitioners is that the money was required for their own purpose and to repay loan availed by deceased, it would be unfair to prevent the petitioners for the use of the money for their benefit when the petitioners have suffered the loss of the only earning member of the family. In the original order, the learned Tribunal had directed the bank not to release the deposit without order from the Tribunal. This implied that the petitioners did have the right to obtain an order. Hence