JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 16.4.09 Annex.5 and a direction to the respondent Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner to release the amount of Fixed Deposit Receipts which was deposited by the petitioner out of the amount of compensation awarded to him by the tribunal in compliance of the tribunal's order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries resulting in amputation of left toe in a road accident on 12.9.2001 caused by the driver of the vehicle by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. A claim petition came to be filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) claiming compensation which came to be allowed by order dated 29.11.2006 and the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,09,174/-. After adjusting the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded as no fault liability, the tribunal directed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in three FDRs, first for a period of five years, second for a period of ten years and third for a period of fifteen year. Thus, out of the awarded amount, the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- in F.D.R. with a condition that premature encashment would be subject to the permission of the tribunal. The award has become final since it has not been challenged by way of an appeal by any of the parties. 4. The marriage of the petitioner's son Mohd. Rafiq was scheduled to be held and therefore, the petitioner applied for premature encashment of the FDR before the tribunal on 7.11.2008 and the said application was allowed vide order dated 10.12.2008 Annex.1. According to the petitioner due to unavoidable circumstances and more particularly death of Smt. Marium wife of elder father of the petitioner on 2.1.2009, the marriage of son of the petitioner Mohd. Rafiq could not be solemnized and it was deferred. Subsequent thereto, the marriage of petitioner's daughter namely Begum Bano was scheduled to be solemnized, therefore, the petitioner applied for premature release of his FDR for the marriage of his daughter scheduled to be solemnized on 20.4.09. Rafiq could not be solemnized and it was deferred. Subsequent thereto, the marriage of petitioner's daughter namely Begum Bano was scheduled to be solemnized, therefore, the petitioner applied for premature release of his FDR for the marriage of his daughter scheduled to be solemnized on 20.4.09. The amount of FDR which was released earlier for the purpose of marriage of petitioner's son was utilised for the marriage of the petitioner's daughter Begum Bano, therefore, the petitioner again applied for premature release of FDR. According to the petitioner, now the marriage of his son Mohd. Rafiq is scheduled to be solemnized on 7.6.2009. However, the application seeking premature release of the FDR came to be dismissed by the respondent tribunal. Hence this writ petition. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has son and daughter whose marriage was to be solemnized and it is the petitioner who is to incur the expenses for solemnizing their marriages. The petitioner came with clean hands stating that the money which the petitioner received by way of premature encashment of FDR under the orders of the tribunal for the marriage of his son was not utilised for marriage for the reason that his son's marriage was deferred due to untimely death of his near relative i.e. Smt. Marium but that amount was utilised by the petitioner for solemnizing marriage of her daughter Begum Bano and the marriage of the petitioner's son Mohd. Rafiq is now scheduled to be solemnized on 7.6.2009 as on account of unavoidable circumstances and sudden death of near relative of the petitioner the marriage of his son was deferred earlier and the petitioner is not in a position to solemnize the marriage of his son without reasonable amount with him and the petitioner's own money is lying with the bank under Fixed Deposit Receipt and therefore, the same amount may be released in favour of the petitioner. 6. 6. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the amount deposited under the order of the tribunal in Fixed Deposit Receipts is the property of the petitioner and when the petitioner came with a case that he needs the property to solemnize the marriage of his son which according to the petitioner is his customary obligation, it would have been proper for the tribunal to release the amount of FDR of Rs.50,000/- for the said purpose. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16.4.2009 is set aside and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner is directed to release the F.D.R. of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the petitioner directing the concerned bank to pay the amount to the petitioner in cash.Writ Petition Allowed. *******