IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 713 of 2008(I) ------------------------ OPMV.2231/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ REETHAMMA PAUL, W/O. LATE PAUL, AGED 64 YEARS, ANATHAZHATH HOUSE, NEAR MARKET, NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT: ------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., IRINJALAKUDA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 713 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 7, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that her husband met with a fatal accident and that in the claim petition filed before the MACT, Perumbavoor, compensation was awarded. That was enhanced by this court in MFA No.374/2000 by Ext.P1 judgment. In Ext.P1, compensation towards loss of dependency was enhanced and the claim for enhancement in respect of other items were rejected. It was also directed that since the accident had occurred ten years ago, on deposit of the amount, the petitioner will be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that amount has been deposited in terms of Ext.P1; however, the amount was ordered to be deposited in the SBI, Perumbavoor branch. Subsequently petitioner submitted I.A.3653/2007 praying for withdrawal of the WP(C) 713/2008 Page numbers amount. In the affidavit in support of the IA it is stated that for their own maintenance and towards the expenses in connection with the education of the children, petitioner had incurred heavy debts and to discharge the debts so incurred, petitioner wanted the amount in deposit to be released to her. However, the Tribunal by Ext.P3 rejected the application stating that the petitioner had not stated as to why they required the amount. On this ground, the application made by the power-of-attorney-holder has been rejected and it is challenging Ext.P3 that the writ petition has been filed. 3. It may not be correct to say that the application is not supported by reasons. It is stated in the application that the petitioner has borrowed money from several persons in order to meet the educational and other expenses of the children. If, in fact, the petitioner has incurred liability as stated by her, there should be no reason to blindly disbelieve such averment and reject the request made by the petitioner. Therefore, the reasoning in Ext.P3 cannot be fully appreciated. WP(C) 713/2008 Page numbers 4. In view of this I direct that the petitioner will be permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount that is now available in deposit. If the petitioner still wants to withdraw any further amount in deposit, it will be open to the petitioner to make suitable application before the Tribunal, in which case such application will be considered on its merits. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-