IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24812 of 2008(D) -------------------------- OPMV.1698/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KUTTAN, S/O.KARUVAN SANKARAN MADAVAKKARA HOUSE, NENMANIKKARA CHITTISSERRY PO., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENTS: ------------- MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IRINJALAKUDA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 24812 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 18, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was a claimant in OP(MV) 1698/2001, before the MACT, Irinjalakuda. The claim was disposed of by Ext.P1, awarding compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the amount awarded, petitioner was permitted to withdraw only Rs.30,000/- and the balance was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit. It is stated that the petitioner is still under continuous treatment and to meet his medical expenses, petitioner wanted the balance amount available in deposit to be released and, with that prayer, Ext.P2 application was filed producing Ext.P3 medical certificate issued by the Medical College Chest Hospital, Thrissur. However, the Tribunal has rejected the claim by Ext.P4 order. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. WP(C) 24812/08 2 2. A reading of Ext.P4 order shows that the Tribunal has not given any reason whatsoever for rejecting Ext.P2 request made by the petitioner. True, it is well within the discretionary power of the Tribunal to deal with an application in the nature of Ext.P2. But then, such exercise of discretionary power has to be supported by reasons and that is conspicuously absent in Ext.P4. 3. In Ext.P2 application petitioner has stated that it was in order to meet his treatment expenses that he wanted release of the amount in deposit. This request of the petitioner was supported by Ext.P3 medical certificate. If, as a matter of fact, a claimant wants release of the amount to meet treatment expenses, I cannot think of a better reason for justifying the request made. In view of this, I see no justification for declining the relief prayed for by the petitioner. 4. For the aforesaid reasons I am not in a position to sustain Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 will stand quashed and the WP(C) 24812/08 3 Tribunal shall, on production of a copy of this judgment, permit the petitioner to release the amount, as prayed for by him. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-