IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22707 of 2008(C) -------------------------- OPMV.736/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ BIJU KUMAR, S/O BABURAJ, CHEMMANNUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KAMUKINCODE, ATHIYANNOOR, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22707/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the claimant in O.P(MV).No.736/2002, before the MACT, Neyyattinkara. The Tribunal by Ext.P1 award, granted compensation and it is stated that the amount has also been deposited by the Insurance Company. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for releasing the amount in deposit. The tribunal considered the application and passed Ext.P3 order releasing Rs.60,000/- and directing to maintain the balance in a fresh fixed deposit. It is aggrieved by Ext.P3, in so far as it refused to release the full amount to the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that consequent on the accident, the petitioner has been totally immobilized. According to him, it is to make a livelihood by 2 utilising the amount in deposit, that the petitioner wants the amount to be released. 3. True, as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, he has raised his claim for release of the full amount in Ext.P2 application. It was without taking into account the reason stated that the Tribunal ordered release of only Rs.60,000/- and refused to release the balance amount. I am satisfied that Ext.P3 does not contain any reason for refusing the genuine prayer sought for by the petitioner. For that reason itself, Ext.P3 deserves to be set aside. Therefore, Ext.P3, in so far as it refused the entire amount to the petitioner will stand set aside and the MACT, Neyyattinkara is directed to allow Ext.P2 application for the full amount and release the amount on production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the respondent for compliance. vi ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE 3