IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6496 of 2008(W) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA'S 769/08 & 770/08 IN OPMV.86/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. PADMAVATHY, W/O.LATE SIVARAMN, KURIKKALTHARA, VADAKKENCHERRY P.O, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. NOW RESIDING AT “SIVADAM”, CHEERAKUZHY, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, VADAKKENCHERRY VIA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. 2. KRISHNAJA, D/O.LATE SIVARAMAN, KURIKKALTHARA, VADAKKENCHERRY P.O, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. NOW RESIDING AT “SIVADAM”, CHEERAKUZHY, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, VADAKKENCHERRY VIA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT: ---------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, KH ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 027. BY SRI.K.PRABHAKRAN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 6496 OF 2008 W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is the mother and the 2nd petitioner is her daughter. Shri. Sivaraman, husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner died in a motor accident. Petitioners filed O.P. (MV) No. 86 of 2000 before the M.A.C.T., Palakkad in which compensation was awarded and a substantial portion of which was deposited under the orders of the Tribunal. 2. While the deposit remains as such in view of the marriage of the 2nd petitioner, the petitioners filed Exts. P3 and P4 interlocutory applications before the Tribunal for permitting them to withdraw the amount in deposit. These applications which were numbered as I.A. Nos. 769 and 770 of 2008 were considered by the Tribunal and orders dated 18.2.2008 were passed rejecting the same on the ground that the reason stated for withdrawal of the amount was insufficient. It is challenging this order and praying for release of the amount in deposit this writ petition has been filed. 3. A reading of Exts. P3 and P4 interlocutory applications filed W.P.(C) No. 6496 OF 2008 -2- by the petitioners shows that the reason for withdrawal is the marriage of the 2nd petitioner. In these affidavits the petitioners have stated that they have no other source of money for meeting the expenditure that is to be incurred in connection with the marriage. They also produced Exts. P1 invitation card and Ext. P2 receipt issued for booking an auditorium for solemnising the marriage. Therefore the fact that the marriage is scheduled cannot be disputed. If their inability to meet the expenditure in connection with the wedding of the 2nd petitioner cannot be sound reason, I wonder whether there can be a better one justifying the request for withdrawal of the amount in deposit. In my view the Tribunal has taken a very unrealistic attitude in dealing with Exts. P3 and P4. 4. Therefore, quashing the orders dated 18.2.2008 in I.A. Nos. 769 & 770 of 2008 filed by the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 86/2000, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Tribunal shall permit the petitioners to withdraw the amount available in deposit pursuant to the award passed in the aforesaid O.P. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-