THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4713 OF 2009 DATED: 26.10.2009 Between: Bandi Mythili .. Petitioner And K. Sanker and another .. Respondents ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the docket order, dated 03.07.2009, passed in I.A.No.358 of 2009 in O.P.No.778 of 1999, on the file of the I Additional District Judge’s Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore. Petitioner herein is claimant No.1 in O.P.No.778 of 1999 filed before the Tribunal, seeking compensation for the damage caused to her car in the accident occurred on 07.06.1999. The said O.P. was allowed on 15.03.2004, and an amount of Rs.1,17,350/- was awarded as compensation with interest and costs. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/-, out of her share, and the rest of the amount was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit with State Bank of India, Main Branch, Barracks, Nellore, for a period of three years. After five years of passing of the said award, the present I.A. was filed seeking to permit the Special Power of Attorney of the petitioner, namely Duvvuru Venkata Krishna Reddy, to withdraw the remaining amount of the petitioner’s share i.e. a sum of Rs.84,274/-, lying in fixed deposit, as the petitioner has to repay the debt of Rs.1,30,000/- incurred by her under the promissory note dated 15.06.2006. The Tribunal, holding that the compensation shall be paid to the party directly but not to any other person and that the petitioner has to satisfy that she is in need of money, dismissed the I.A., by the impugned order dated 03.07.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the respondents have reported no objection for granting the relief prayed for in the application. It also appears that the promissory note dated 15.06.2006 said to have been executed by the petitioner, while obtaining the loan of Rs.1,30,000/-, was filed before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the O.P. was filed for grant of compensation for the damage caused to a car, but not for the injuries caused to a person or for the death of a person, and the petitioner is a major and residing in United States of America. Thus, there is no need to protect the interests of the petitioner by keeping the remaining amount of compensation in fixed deposit, even after five years of passing of the award. In such circumstances, the Tribunal should have been more pragmatic and allowed the application. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 03.07.2009 is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside and I.A.No.358 of 2009 in O.P.No.778 of 1999 stands allowed. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. ___________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 26th October, 2009. Note:- Issue C.C. in one week. B/o IBL