2025:APHC:3256 APHC010000632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 115/2025 Between:

Angeri Raja @ Kanna Raja ...PETITIONER AND Puli Subrahmanyam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed against the order dated 18.11.2024, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.1544/2024 in M.V.O.P.No.576/2019 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Nellore-cum-Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore filed by the claimant seeking permission to withdraw Rs.10,75,781/- with interest accrued thereon, to enable him to conduct business to earn his livelihood as his left leg and right hand were amputated as a result of accident.

02. The Tribunal dismissed the petition observing that no evidence is placed in support of the contention of the petitioner that he needs the amount to meet the business expenditure and the time stipulated in the award for keeping the amount of compensation in fixed deposit for three years has not lapsed.

03. On 31.01.2023, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition by directing the payment of compensation of Rs.17,18,000/- with interest @7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The respondents No.1 to 3 therein were held jointly and severally responsible to pay Rs.8,59,000/- with proportionate costs and interests and the 4^th respondent was made liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.8,59,000/- with proportionate costs and interests. Out of such amount, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.16,18,000/- along with proportionate costs and interests was directed to be invested in any nationalized bank in fixed deposit for a period of 36 months, and on maturity, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the entire amount in deposit along with the accrued interest and the costs in lump sum.

04. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the 4^th respondent challenged the award by filing the appeal, the 4^th respondent had not deposited the part of compensation as per the liability fastened in the award and that it is only the 3^rd respondent which had deposited half of the liability fastened on the respondents No.1 to 3. Therefore, he submitted that it is only 50% of the awarded compensation amount which was deposited so far.

05. He further submitted that even out of such amount, only Rs.50,000/- (out of permitted amount i.e., Rs.1,00,000/-) was allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner. He further stated that the petitioner suffered with amputation to his left leg as well as right hand and therefore, even after lapse of five years since the date of accident, petitioner is unable to meet his financial needs and unable to make his earnings.

06. Since the petitioner has already suffered not only physically, but financially, a reasonable amount of compensation shall be allowed to be withdrawn and keeping the substantial large part of the amount of compensation in fixed deposit does not meet the objective of awarding compensation. Of course, the Tribunal shall also consider the interest of the claimant, who suffered permanent disability due to amputation, to secure the future interest. To strike the balance of the interest of the injured in the present and in future, a reasonable amount of compensation shall be permitted to be withdrawn.

07. Since the 4^th respondent had not deposited any amount of compensation out of 50% of the awarded compensation, nothing can be drawn by the petitioner. The amount in deposit is only 50% of the compensation which was deposited by the 3^rd respondent. If, out of such amount also, no reasonable amount is permitted to be withdrawn, the petitioner would be made to suffer further.

08.