AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—Advocates are absenting themselves from attending the Court. Perused the grounds of Revision and
also the impugned order in I.A. No. 702 of 2008 in MCOP. No. 237 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal
Subordinate Judge), Mayiladuthurai. I.A. No. 702 of 2008 was filed by the claimant for permitting him to withdraw the entire award amount
inclusive of interest to the tune of Rs. 1,97,328/- which is in fixed deposit in nationalised bank as per the orders of the Tribunal.
The affidavit to the application reads that the petitioner requires Rs. 25,000/- to undergo another surgery to remove the steel plates which were
fixed after the accident while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital and also to meet other medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- after
the accident. Apart from the above said claim, the petitioner would further state that he requires Rupees One Lakh to meet the travelling expenses
to go to Singapore as planed before the accident. In the said application, R1 remained exparte and R2 had endorsed no objection. On the basis of
the proof affidavit filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal had allowed the application in part permitting the petitioner to withdraw Rs. 95,000/- as
against the claim of Rs. 1,95,000/-.
A careful reading of the affidavit will go to show that the petitioner had already planed to visit Singapore even before the date of accident. So
the claim of Rs. 1 lakh to meet the travelling expenses cannot be allowed because even before the accident he would have made all arrangements
to meet the travelling expenses to go to Singapore. To meet the further medical expenses even according to the petitioner he requires only Rs.
75,000/-, but the Tribunal has allowed the petitioner to withdraw Rs. 95,000/- from out of the award amount. Even after visiting Singapore, the
petitioner can withdraw the balance of the award amount which is in fixed deposit in nationalised bank. Under such circumstances, I do not find
any reason to interfere with the orders of the tribunal.
In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge),
Mayiladuthurai, in I.A. No. 702 of 2008 in MCOP. No. 237 of 2006. No costs.