(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5991 OF 2009 Anusayabai w/o. Ambadas Asalmol, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Household & Agriculture, R/o. Karanja, Taluka & District : Washim, At present Selu, Dist. Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Pralhad s/o. Vikrantrao Asalmol, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Bramham Kheda, Taluka : Karanja, District : Washim. 2. National Insurance Company Ltd., Akola, (through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Nanded), Taluka & District : Nanded. .. Respondents. .......................... (2) Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent nos.1 and 2 served (Absent). .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Inspite of being duly served with notice before admission, none appears for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. As the award passed by the Tribunal has not been challenged either by the respondent no.1 or by the respondent no.2, Insurance Company, notice upon rule, on the respondents is waived. 4. Leave to amend the prayer clause. 5. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th April 2009, passed by the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 185/2004, thereby rejecting the application filed by the (3) present petitioner for withdrawal of amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- kept in fixed deposit receipt. 6. The petitioner had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 185/2004, in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani, as her son Gopal had expired in an accident. The claim is allowed and compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- was awarded. It appears that out of the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited in a fixed deposit receipt. An application came to be filed for withdrawal of the said amount. The same is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 7. The petitioner has made a specific averment in the petition, that the award passed by the Tribunal has not been challenged either by the respondent no.1 or by the Insurance Company. It is further to be noted that the petitioner is a major lady of 46 years. The reason given in the application was that the amount was required since she had dug up a well and she was in need of the amount for irrigation of the land. In the light of these facts, I do not find that it was necessary to invest the amount in a fixed deposit receipt. 8. Hence, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of amended prayer clause "A". There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE bgp/5991wp