THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1195 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is his wife, the 2nd petitioner is the daughter and the 2nd respondent is said to be the mother of the deceased. M.V.O.P.No.558 of 2000 was filed before the Court of Principal District Judge, Kurnool, for compensation. A decree was passed in the O.P., awarding compensation and apportioning the same between various claimants and dependants of the deceased. There existed an insurance policy in the name of the deceased. The 2nd respondent was the nominee therein. On a claim submitted by the 2nd respondent, the Life Insurance Corporation, the 3rd respondent, paid the insurance amount. Petitioners filed O.S.No.91 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against the respondents herein, for recovery of the amount. The suit was mainly contested by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners have gone to the extent of disputing the status of the 2nd respondent as the mother of the deceased. According to them, the 1st respondent is the mother of late Murali Krishna. The suit was decreed and the decree has become final. Petitioners filed E.P.No.97 of 2008 with a prayer to attach the amount of Rs.2,88,674/- from out of the amount lying to the credit of M.V.O.P.No.558 of 2000. The E.P. was resisted by the 2nd respondent. Through its order, dated 04.02.2011, the trial Court dismissed the E.P. Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. It is no doubt true that there is a decree against the 2nd respondent in the suit filed by the petitioners. They, however, wanted the attachment of an amount, which is deposited to the credit of M.V.O.P.No.558 of 2000. The 2nd respondent stated that she has already paid the shares of the petitioners from out of the amount paid by the 3rd respondent. There was no basis for the petitioners to seek attachment of the amount, which is to the credit of M.V.O.P. The trial Court made a reference to the judgment rendered by this Court in Nylapally Narayana v. Brahmanapally Sarojini[1], while dismissing the E.P. It was held by this Court that the amount awarded in favour of the claimants in a motor accidents claim petition cannot be treated as loss caused to the estate of the deceased. The petitioners could have chosen other modes of execution. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06.04.2011. GJ [1] 2006 (5) ALT 651