THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3822 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed M.V.O.P.No.365 of 2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole, against the respondents, claiming compensation on account of the death of her child. Through its order, dated 12.05.2010, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, it did not make any stipulation either as to the withdrawal of the amounts or as to the deposit of the same in fixed deposits. The respondents deposited the entire amount to the credit of the M.V.O.P. The petitioner filed E.A.No.334 of 2011 seeking permission to withdraw the deposited amount. The Tribunal passed an order, dated 13.05.2011 permitting the petitioner to withdraw half of the deposited amount and directing that the remaining half shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of three years. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of permission to withdraw the entire amount. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the respondents did not contest the matter, it is not necessary to issue notice to them. The M.V.O.P. filed by the petitioner claiming compensation was partly allowed awarding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. For one reason or the other, the Tribunal did not incorporate any condition either as to the withdrawal of the amount by the petitioner or as to the deposit of the same in a nationalised bank in its entirety or in part. That however was noticed, only when the petitioner filed an application to withdraw the amount, after the respondents deposited it. It is not doubt true that the Tribunal has adopted a balanced approach in permitting the petitioner to withdraw half and directing that the balance be kept in a fixed deposit. That however would be an improvement upon the order in the M.V.O.P. itself. The situation is akin to the one, where an executing Court proposes to improve upon the decree. It is well settled that an executing Court cannot add to or delete anything from the decree. Howsoever laudable the intention of the Tribunal may have been, it ought not to have altered the terms of the decree. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the remaining 50% amount deposited to the credit of the M.V.O.P., without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:15.09.2011. kdl