1 CA No. 1341 of 2011 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAUTRE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1341 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1142 OF 2008 Smt. Malutai @ Malati Nabhiraj Lande ... Applicant Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors ... Respondents Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Ranjan Tripathi holding for Mr. S.M. Vidyarthi for respondent no. 1. CORAM : SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : APRIL 25, 2011 P.C. 1. This application is by the original respondent no. 1 for withdrawal of the amounts deposited by the appellant as also respondent no. 6 insurer for the second vehicle involved in the accident. By the Judgment and order impugned in the appeal, the appellant and respondent no. 6 have been jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,35,000/­ on account of injury sustained by respondent no. 1 in the motor vehicle accident. Respondent no. 6 Insurance company has not challenged the judgment and award and it has deposited 50% of the amount of award in the tribunal. Pursuant to the orders passed by the tribunal, 30% of the amount had been handed over to the claimant and 70% deposited in the fixed deposits 2 CA No. 1341 of 2011 with Sangli Branch of Bank of India in F.D.R. A/c.. No. 774647446. The amounts invested in the F.,D.R. is Rs.1,68,004/­ By prayer clause (a) of the application the claimant seeks permission to withdraw that amount even before the fixed deposits matures for payment. The early withdrawal is on the ground that the applicant has been diagnosissed of cancer and requires money for her treatment. 2. The appellant has also deposited 50% of the amount awarded in the tribunal. The applicant seeks to withdraw 30% of that amount for medical expenses. 3. Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company relying upon order of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. M.S. Lakshmisha and Ors. reported in JT 2000 (Supp.1) S.C. 207 submits that the amount cannot be allowed to be withdrawn unconditionally and withdrawal must be allowed on bank guarantee. What is relied upon is an order and not a judgment of pronouncement of legal principal. The order of the Apex Court was obviously passed in the facts and circumstances of that case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the application for withdrawal of 30% of the 3 CA No. 1341 of 2011 amount deposited by the appellant before the tribunal without any security. Civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)