THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No. 4923 of 2009 O R D E R: Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents are merely formal parties. The petitioner herein has moved I.A.No. 67 of 2009 in O.P.No. 472 of 2004 praying for withdrawing the balance compensation amount of Rs.3,57,272/- which was lying in fixed deposit with a nationalized bank. The facts that gave rise to filing I.A.No. 67 of 2009 are these: The petitioner was involved in a motor vehicle accident, resulting in amputation of his left leg. Seeking compensation for the damage sustained by him, he instituted O.P.No. 472 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Asifabad. The said Court, by its judgment and decree, dated 14th September 2007, allowed the O.P., ordering for an amount of Rs.4,10,526/- to be paid towards compensation by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The said amount was also ordered to carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The petitioner herein was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- out of the compensation amount and the balance amount was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three weeks. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the interest earned quarterly thereon. Then the petitioner has moved I.A.No. 67 of 2009 seeking to withdraw the entire amount of compensation on the ground that the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has become final and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have accepted the decree and that they have deposited the entire amount of compensation ordered by the said Tribunal. He also acknowledged that he has been paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. However, he seeks to withdraw the entire amount of compensation for two reasons; 1) he seeks to get an artificial limb to be implanted; and 2) he wants to establish a kirana store to carry on business. He tried to explain that amount of Rs.1,50,000/- received by him as part of the compensation awarded, was hardly sufficient for liquidating the loans incurred by him during his hard times. The Court below was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner and dismissed the I.A. by its order, dated 12th June 2009. Against that order, the present Civil Revision Petition is moved. Though Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were served in the I.A., since the relief prayed for is inconsequential, they did not prefer to contest the said I.A. Hence, no useful purpose would be served in putting them on notice in this Civil Revision Petition. The essential philosophy that prompted the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to keep a substantial portion of the amount of compensation in a fixed deposit was to ensure that the claimant/petitioner will not wither away the entire amount of compensation for long periods of time, particularly, when he was a young person of 36 years age. Except stating that amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid to him already was spent towards liquidating his liabilities, he could not convincingly explain as to how so much of money has been spent away in such a short span of time. Excepting his statement that he wants to have the artificial limb implanted, there is no justification for him to seek modification of the decree and judgment passed in O.P.No.472 of 2004. However, if the petitioner is genuinely desirous of seeking artificial limb to be implanted and if he does not have sufficient money left with him for the said purpose, the Court should not come in the way of helping the petitioner to re- establish himself in life. Implantation of an artificial limb, perhaps, will enhance not only his quality of living, but would also help him in eking out his livelihood without much difficulty. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to modify the decree passed in O.P.No.472 of 2004, by directing a further sum of Rs.1 lac to be paid by way of a crossed account payee cheque to the petitioner herein and he should spend substantial amount thereof only for the purpose of securing implantation of an artificial limb. The balance amount of compensation shall lie in a fixed deposit for a further period of five years and the petitioner shall be entitled to receive interest on quarterly basis only. With this, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 5th November 2009 ksld