1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2441 OF 2009 01. Arefa Yunus Khan Pathan R/o Jakekur, Tq-Omerga, Dist- Osmanabad 02. Yasmin Yunus Khan Pathan R/o Kakekur, Tq-Omerga Dist-Osmanabad PETITIONERS VERSUS None ....... Mr.S.B.Ghute, Advocate for the petitioners ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 9th June 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order passed below Exhibit-1 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 337/2008 dated 06.12.2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to allow 2 them to withdraw the amount invested in the Fixed Deposit Receipt in State Bank of India, which was awarded in favour of the petitioners in MACT No.271/1992. The petitioners have contended before the lower Court that the amount was invested in the name of petitioner No.2 as at the that time she was minor. However, now, she has attained majority and recently got married. Private loan has been obtained to perform her marriage and the same requires to be repaid. Unless the amount deposited in the name of the petitioner No.2 in the State Bank of India, Branch Omerga, is allowed to be withdrawn, the said loan cannot be repaid and there is also no other source of income to repay the loan amount raised by the petitioner No.1. 2. It is brought to my notice that the learned District Judge has observed in the order dated 06.12.2008 that though the petitioner No.2 has attained majority, yet she may not be capable of understanding about the investment and to spend the amount for which she is entitled to. It is further observed that the amount is for her future and it is for the functional security given to her over 3 others. In the light of these observations, the application moved for withdrawal of the amount came to be rejected by the Principal District Judge, Beed vide the impugned order. 3. It is a fact that Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunals established thereunder and the claims decided by them are the claims under the social legislation for the welfare of the victims of the accidents. It is also a fact that the amount was kept in the Fixed Deposit, in the bank, in the name of the petitioner No.2 when she was to attain majority and she is entitled to that amount after attaining majority. It is undisputed that the petitioner No.2 has now attained majority and the grounds mentioned in the application for withdrawal of the amount that the loan has been obtained to met out the expenses of the marriage of the petitioner No.2, which requires to be repaid, cannot easily be contraverted. I do not find that any good ground is mentioned for rejection of the application for withdrawal of money to which the petitioners are entitled to. In the premise, the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed in Miscellaneous Application No.337/2008 4 dated 06.12.2008 requires to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 06.12.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and stands disposed of with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/wp2441-09