Judgment : S. TAMILVANAN, J. This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. G. Devi, advocate for the petitioner the Court made the following order: The petitioners/claimants have filed this petition, seeking permission to withdraw 50% of the award amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 3628 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased, the petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor children, the petitioners 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. A. Ramachandran met with the motor accident on 2.7.2001 and died. According to the petitioners, he was aged about 27 years on the date of the accident. Based on his age and income, they claimed a total compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- and as per the award, dated 26.4.2007, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,94,000/-payable to the petitioners, as stated in the award. It is represented by the learned counsel for the first respondent/appellant that the entire award amount was deposited before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/appellant contended that on the date of accident, the motor vehicle referred to in the M.C.O.P. had been stolen by some other person and the accident was caused only by the said person and subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. In support of the aforesaid contention, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/appellant also cited the decision, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and Others United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and Others United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and Others (2008) 3 MLJ 932 : 2008 (1) TN MAC 126 (SC), wherein under Sections 2(30), 147 and 149, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held that the State Government shall be liable to pay compensation to the affected claimants and not the registered owner of vehicle and consequently the Insurer. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and Others (2008) 3 MLJ 932 : 2008 (1) TN MAC 126 (SC), wherein under Sections 2(30), 147 and 149, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held that the State Government shall be liable to pay compensation to the affected claimants and not the registered owner of vehicle and consequently the Insurer. The admitted fact of the case is that during the public election, a car requisitioned by Sub-Divisional Magistrate through the Deputy Commissioner was in possession and under the control of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the time of the accident. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/respondents would contend that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the aforesaid case, admittedly, the private car involved in the accident was utilized by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (the Executive Magistrate) for the purpose of election duty and the motor accident had occurred only when the vehicle was in the possession and under the control of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and therefore, on the aforesaid circumstances, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has directed the State Government to pay compensation. The aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the user of the vehicle being the State authority and the vehicle was used for election duty. 5. In the decision, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru (2003) 2 MLJ 148 , : 2003 ACJ 611, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that in order to avoid its liability, the Insurance Company has to prove that the driver was not duly licensed and that the owner-insured was aware or had noticed that the license was fake and still permitted that person to drive the vehicle, even in such a case, the Insurance Company would remain liable to the third party to pay the amount, but it may recover the amount from the insured. 6. In the decision, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kendra Devi (2008) 2 MLJ 1056 , : 2008 (1) CTC 430, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that though the policy was without additional premium or coverage for owner cum driver, who died in the accident, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation taking note of the peculiar fact that the claimants had lost only bread winner. In the instance case also, the petitioners herein have lost the bread winner of their family. 7. In the instance case also, the petitioners herein have lost the bread winner of their family. 7. In the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view the liability of the first respondent cannot be questioned at this stage. If there is any breach of contract by the owner of the vehicle, the first respondent, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., is entitled to proceed against the owner of the vehicle to recover the amount, after making payment to the dependents of the deceased, since the Act itself is a welfare legislation to safeguard the affected persons in the motor accident. 8. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is left open to the appellant to advance the arguments based on the available evidence on record and therefore, to meet the ends of justice, I am of the view to allow this Miscellaneous Petition, seeking permission to withdraw 50% of the award amount already deposited by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 3628 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, without prejudice to the claim of the first respondent herein. 9. Out of the five petitioners, it is seen that the petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased. Their share amount cannot be withdrawn by the mother and guardian till they attain majority. However, being the mother and guardian of the minor petitioners 2 and 3, their guardian is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the maintenance of the aforesaid minor petitioners. 10. Accordingly, this petition is ordered, permitting the petitioners 1, 4 and 5 to withdraw 50% of their share amount with proportionate interest lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 3628 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Ill Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The first petitioner, being the mother and guardian of the minor petitioners 2 and 3 is also permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the benefit of the aforesaid minors and the minor petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw the amount, after attaining majority. 11. With the above observation, this petition is ordered.