LAWS(APH)-2003-11-104

E KRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 25, 2003
E.KRISHNA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order, dated 11.3.2003 made in LA. No.534 of 2002 in O.A.A. No.28 of 2000 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad is assailed in this revision petition on various grounds.

(2.) The petitioner herein along with his mother and two sisters filed O.A.A. No.28 of 2000 before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of his father late Sri Yellaiah in an untoward incident of fall from train and the above application was allowed by the Tribunal by order, dated 27.3.2002 awarding a compensation of Rs.4,00,000.00 in all. The claimants including the petitioner were awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 each and the said amount was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit initially for a period of three years renewable from time to time. However the petitioner and other legal heirs were permitted to withdraw the interest accrues thereon every month. While so, the petitioner herein filed LA. No.534 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking permission to withdraw an amount of Rs.75,000/- from and out of the amount lying in fixed deposit towards his share for purchase of motor cycle and utensils etc. The mother of the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, also filed an application in LA. No.533 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking permission to withdraw an amount of Rs.45,000.00 from and out of the amount lying in fixed deposit in her name for celebrating cradle ceremony of her granddaughter. The Tribunal by common order, dated 11.3.2003 dismissed both the applications observing that the object of keeping the amounts in fixed deposit is for the survival of the petitioners by obtaining monthly interest as they have no other means and that if the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amounts as sought for, their livelihood would be affected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased, filed the present revision petition.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the order impugned.