JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Suresh Kumar claimant has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of instant revision to impugn order dated 14.1.2012, Annexure P/4 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (in short, the Tribunal), thereby dismissing petitioner’s application Annexure P/2 for premature release of his fixed deposit amount. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 3. In claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act for injury suffered’ by the claimant in accident, the claimant was awarded compensation of Rs 1,15,000/-; out of which amount Rs 30,000/- was released to him in cash and the remaining amount was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit for three years. 4. The petitioner in his application Annexure P/2 alleged that some amount out of the compensation amount is liying deposited in fixed deposit. The petitioner suffered some ailment and had to undergo operation and spent Rs 3 lacs on his treatment by taking loan. Accordingly, the petitioner required the fixed deposit amount for repayment of loan. 5. Learned Tribunal vide impugned order Annexure P/4 dismissed application Annexure P/2 by observing that the petitioner has failed to place record any documentary proof that he had taken loan from some body and the same is to be repaid. This approach of the Tribunal is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error because the Tribunal refused to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it to allow application Annexure P/2. The petitioner produced bill Annexure P/l of the expenses incurred by him on his own treatment. This bill is for Rs. 2,51,964.57. If the petitioner borrowed some amount for payment of the said treatment expenses, from his friends or relatives, there was likely to be no documentary evidence in this regard. Even otherwise, there being documentary evidence of treatment expenses incurred by the petitioner, no further proof of any loan amount was required. The petitioner is certainly entitled to use the amount of his fixed deposit for expenses incurred on his treatment. 6. Accordingly, the instant revision petition IS allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/4 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Application Annexure P/2 moved by the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner is certainly entitled to use the amount of his fixed deposit for expenses incurred on his treatment. 6. Accordingly, the instant revision petition IS allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/4 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Application Annexure P/2 moved by the petitioner is allowed. It is directed that total amount of fixed deposit receipt Annexure P/3 including accrued interest amount be released to the petitioner against proper identification and receipt. --------------------