THE HON’BE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.285 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24.11.2009 passed by the court of I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.1907/2009 in A.S.No.38/2009, in rejecting permission to the petitioners/claimants to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondents – A.P. TRANSCO, the present revision is filed. 3. The petitioners are the dependants of the deceased – S.Shankar, who died due to electrocution. They filed suit in O.S.No.51/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan claiming compensation for the death of the deceased due to the negligence of officials of A.P. Transco. By judgment and decree dated 5.12.2008, the trial court gave a categorical finding that the death of the deceased took place due to the negligence of the respondents – APTRANSCO and further held that claimants lost their bread earner and further based on the evidence, found that the deceased is an agriculturist owning a land to an extent of Acs.3-00 of agricultural wet land and thus he was earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, granted an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- to 1st plaintiff who is the wife of the deceased, towards loss of consortium; Rs.24,000/- to petitioners 3 and 4, who are the children of the deceased, towards loss of love and affection and thus in all granted an amount of Rs.2,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realization. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the A.P. TRANSCO. filed appeal in A.S.No.38/2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad and by order dated 22.7.2009 in I.A.No.853/2009 in A.S.No.38/2009 the court below granted stay of the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.51.2006 subject to depositing half of the decretal amount within two months. Accordingly, the respondents herein deposited an amount of Rs.1,49,500/-. The petitioners filed present I.A.No.1907/2009 in A.S.No.38/2009 seeking to vacate the stay on the ground that the respondents did not deposit half of the decretal amount, since they deposited only Rs.1,49,500/- and the interest awarded on the decretal amount was not added and further they also sought for permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondents. By the impugned order, the court below dismissed the I.A., on the ground that the respondents deposited the amount in compliance of the interim orders of the court and further if the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amount, it would be difficult to recover the amount, in the event of the success of the respondents in the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 5. From the material on record, it could be seen that the trial court based on the evidence, gave a categorical finding that the incident happened due to the negligence of the respondents and it is also found that the deceased owns Acs.3-00 of agricultural wet land with bore well and was earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per annum. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the deceased and the petitioners 3 and 4 are the minor children who lost the love and affection of their father due to his sudden death. Considering these findings of the trial court and the circumstances, I am of the view that the observation of the trial court that in the event of success of the respondents in the appeal, it would be difficult for them to recover the amount, is unsustainable. Further the fact remains that the petitioners lost their bread earner and it would be difficult for the 1st petitioner who is the wife of the deceased, to meet the educational and other expenses. Therefore, in these circumstances, it would be expedient to permit the petitioners to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondents. However, this court by interim order dated 22.12.2010 permitted the claimants to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security. 6. Coming to the second contention of the petitioners is concerned, it is to be seen that the court below while granting stay directed to deposit half of the decretal amount and it is specifically mentioned with regard to interest and costs. Therefore, the respondents deposited the amount and no exception can be taken. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and as the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, no further orders need be passed. 8. It is open for the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the court below seeking direction to the respondents to the deposit interest and costs and in such an event, it is for the court below to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. AVS ----------------------- 13—08—2010