Judgment :- An order of the Fast Track Judge, Dharmapuri, in I.A.No.409 of 2005 made by the revision petitioner/4th claimant in MCOP No.158/96, is challenged in this revision. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, the respondents have not appeared. 3.An award came to be passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri, in MCOP No.158/96 for a sum of Rs.4.25 lakhs along with interest and costs, on 24. 2003. A sum of Rs.7,64,447/-was actually deposited by the first respondent. As per the award, every one of the claimants was entitled to 1/4th, and thus, the revision petitioner/fourth claimant was entitled to Rs.1,06,250/-. She made the said application for the withdrawal of the same on the ground that she was to join with her daughter-in-law-first claimant in purchasing a small plot of 5 cents and making a construction thereon. But, the tribunal was not ready to agree with the reasons put forth, but has ordered withdrawal of 50% of the said amount. Aggrieved, the claimant No.4 in the said MCOP has brought forth this revision before this Court. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/4th claimant is the mother of the victim; that she was aged more than 60; that she had no other means; that for getting some income, she wanted to join with her daughter-in-law and to make a construction in a piece of land of 5 cents; that for that purpose, the amount was required; that she and her daughter-in-law filed two applications in I.A.Nos.408 and 409 of 2005; but, the tribunal has ordered for the withdrawal of 50% in either case; and that once the reason put forth was a real one, the tribunal should have permitted the petitioner to withdraw the entire amount. 5.After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looking into the materials available and in particular, the order of the tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any legal impediment for allowing the petitioner herein, the fourth claimant, to withdraw the entire amount. Admittedly, the MCOP was filed following an accident in which the revision petitioner-mother lost her son. The first claimant was the wife of the victim, while the claimants 2 and 3 were the children and the 4th claimant who is the revision petitioner herein, is the mother. The award was passed on 24. Admittedly, the MCOP was filed following an accident in which the revision petitioner-mother lost her son. The first claimant was the wife of the victim, while the claimants 2 and 3 were the children and the 4th claimant who is the revision petitioner herein, is the mother. The award was passed on 24. 2003. Following the same, the award amount along with accrued interest totalling to Rs.7,64,447/-, was actually deposited, out of which the revision petitioner as per the award is entitled to 1/4th namely Rs.1,06,250/-. When the application was filed for withdrawal of the entire amount, the reason adduced therein was that there was nobody to support her, and she is an aged person, and thus, she has joined with her daughter-in-law to purchase a piece of land having 5 cents and to raise construction, a part of which would yield rent, and under the circumstances, it has got to be ordered. But, the tribunal was not prepared to agree with the reasons adduced, but ordered withdrawal of 50%. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is nothing to suspect the reasons put forth. Admittedly, the petitioner-fourth claimant is the mother of the victim, and she has crossed the age of 60. The reason adduced, is genuine. Under the circumstances, this Court is unable to agree with the denial of the relief as one made by the lower Court. Hence, the order of the lower Court is set aside, and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount and utilise the same for the said purpose. 6.Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is disposed of.