Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Admit.
2. Under this revision, the order passed in I.A.No.486 of 2008 in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, an application filed under Section 151 and Rule 20(8) (10) of Motor Vehicles Act was challenged which was filed by the claimant/revision petitioner for withdrawing a sum of Rs.4,08,159/- being the award amount deposited by the second respondent/The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Erode. In spite of the second respondent has made an endorsement in the said application as to the effect that he has no objection for the petitioner to withdraw the award amount, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Principal Subordinate Judge,Erode had dismissed the said application which necessitated the petitioner in I.A.No.486 of 2008 in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 2005 to prefer this revision.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would represent that only due to the negligence of the driver(1st respondent) of the bus belonging to the second respondent, the accident had occurred and the petitioner was the conductor of the ill fated bus who had sustained fracture on both the legs and the learned Tribunal, after coming to a conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent/driver of the ill fated bus, had awarded a compensatioon of Rs.3,98,130/- which was deposited with interest by the second respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would further state that as per the directions of the learned Tribunal, the award amount was deposited in a nationalised Bank by the Court in the year 2008 and it is still in the bank's deposit for more than one year. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that since he was suffering from heart attack due to the impact of the accident in which he had sustained fracture in both of his legs and to meet the medical and transport expenses, he requires the said award amount and also to discharge the debts, he had borrowed soon after the accident to meet the medical and transport expenses. The learned Tribunal had dismissed the said application only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence. The fact that the petitioner had sustained fracture in both the legs has been proved in the M.C.O.P and an award was also passed in his favour by the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration, the nature of the injury, the petitioner had sustained in the accident. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal ought to have permitted the petitioner to withdraw the entire award amount which is in the bank's deposit to enable him to meet the medical expenses and also to discharge the loan liability. Further it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the second respondent /The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has also not preferred any appeal or revision against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 2005.
5. In fine, this civill revision petition is allowed and the order passed in IA.No.486 of 2008 in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount(with interest) of Rs.4,08,159/- with accrued interest from the nationalised bank in which the same is deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.14 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode without furnishing any security. No costs.
sg To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras