Chenna Madavuni Prathap Raju vs Rayala Rama Rao Chowdhary @ Ravi Mohana Rao Chowdary and Others

G. Rohini, J.—This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30-10-2006 in IA No. 1560 of 2006 in O.P. No. 291 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

The Revision Petitioner was the claimant in O.P. No. 291 of 2005 filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. The said O.P. was decreed on 7-10-2005 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,28,500/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of the petition till deposit, apart from proportionate costs. The Tribunal below permitted the petitioner/claimant to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- out of the compensation awarded, and the balance was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Subsequently, he filed I.A. No. 1560 of 2006 seeking permission to withdraw the balance amount of Rs. 90,192/- which has been kept in fixed deposit, on the ground that the said amount is required to establish a business for his livelihood. It is also pleaded that for the purpose of performing annual ceremony of his father, who died recently, he had to raise certain hand loans and he is obligated to repay the same at the earliest. The Tribunal below dismissed the said application observing that the compensation awarded for the welfare of the claimant cannot be permitted to withdraw for discharging the debts. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition is filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

Since the application in question was filed seeking permission of the Tribunal to withdraw the amount in fixed deposit, which was not opposed by any of the respondents, no notice is necessary to the respondents.

In P.C. Kakar Vs. Commandant, Military Hospital, Trimalgiri and Others, :the guidelines laid down earlier by the Gujarat High Court with regard to withdrawal of the compensation awarded to the claimants were approved. According to the said guidelines, in case of minors, illiterate claimants and semi-literate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily direct investment of compensation amount in long term fixed deposits. Though the said direction can also be made applicable to literate persons, not as an invariable rule, but depending upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

In the case on hand, the petitioner in his affidavit has categorically stated that the amount is required for the purpose of establishing a business for his livelihood. May be that the details of the proposed business are not revealed, but there is no justifiable reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner merely on that ground. The observation of the Tribunal that the compensation amount cannot be utilized for the discharge of debts also appears to be unwarranted. Ultimately, the compensation is only for the benefit of the claimant particularly since the petitioner/claimant in the present case is a major and literate person, the Tribunal is not justified in refusing to grant permission to withdraw the balance of compensation. Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside and I.A. No. 1560 of 2006 is allowed.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.