SUBBALAKSHMI Vs. R PALANISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(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.