THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.4572 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners- claimants against the docket order, dated 07.11.2008, passed in I.A.No.2106 of 2008 in MOP No.410 of 2003 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 2. The first petitioner herein is the wife, petitioners 2 to 4 are the children and petitioners 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased Venkata Rao, who died in the accident occurred on 15.09.2002. They filed MOP No.410 of 2003 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the material available on record, awarded compensation of Rs.10,86,320/- with costs and interest. Out of the said compensation, an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was awarded to the first petitioner and on deposit, she was permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Subsequently, she has withdrawn an amount of Rs.25,000/- and also Rs.1,00,000/- as per the orders dated 13.02.2006 and 02.02.2007 in I.A.Nos.91 of 2006 and 15 of 2007 respectively. In total, she has withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from out of her share amount. Now, she filed the above said I.A. seeking permission to withdraw her remaining share amount of Rs.5,75,000/- with interest and costs so as to clear off her sundry debts, maintain her family and educate her children. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration of the facts, permitted her to withdraw a sum of Rs.75,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner incurred debts for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to meet the educational expenses of her children, and for discharge of the same, she required the amount. He further contended that the Tribunal has permitted the first petitioner to withdraw the meager amount of Rs.75,000/-, which is not sufficient for their sustenance. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 5. A perusal of the material on record shows that admittedly, the first petitioner has withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and the Tribunal permitted her to withdraw further amount of Rs.75,000/- vide order impugned. It is stated in the petition that the third petitioner is studying B.E. Computer Science in Gayathri Engineering College, Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam and the fourth petitioner is studying ninth class. For their studies, naturally, she spent some amounts apart from maintenance of the family. As per the record, the first petitioner has no source of income. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Judge has permitted the first petitioner to withdraw only Rs.75,000/- which does not meet the necessities of her family. In the circumstances, I feel that it would be appropriate to permit the first petitioner to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from out of her remaining share amount, since the cost of living is increasing day by day and the education of children became expensive. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part and the docket order, dated 07.11.2008, in I.A.No.2106 of 2008 in MOP No.410 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, is set aside. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:09.10.2009. sj