JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Claimant Manisha has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 30.07.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (in short – the Tribunal) thereby dismissing application Annexure P-2 filed by the petitioner for release of her fixed deposit amount of Rs.90,000/-. 2. Claim petition filed by petitioner and three others was allowed vide Award dated 05.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal, thereby awarding compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- for death of petitioner’s husband Anil Kumar caused in a motor accident, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till recovery. Out of compensation amount, it was ordered that Rs.50,000/- each shall be paid to claimants no.2 to 4 and the balance amount shall be paid to claimant no.1 Manisha – petitioner herein. The amount was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit. 3. Petitioner moved application Annexure P-2 alleging that she has performed second marriage with Narender, who is a Carpenter and wants to establish his own business and money is needed for the same. Accordingly, petitioner prayed for release of her amount of Rs.90,000/- lying in fixed deposit in the bank. 4. Learned Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 30.07.2011, dismissed the petitioner’s application observing that she had already been released amount of Rs.1,39,956/- along with interest on 19.02.2008 and Rs.49,956/- along with interest accrued thereon up to 26.09.2009, and therefore, there was no justification for releasing the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- lying in fixed deposit, which is to mature on 28.02.2013. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact, amount of Rs.49,956/- only has been released to the petitioner out of her share because her total share was Rs.1,15,000/- with proportionate interest and the alleged amount of Rs.1,39,956/- might have been released to the other claimants. There is considerable merit in the contention of counsel for the petitioner. Even otherwise, the Award was passed on 05.09.2007 i.e. more than four years ago. The amount has remained in fixed deposit during this period. Now the petitioner needs the money for business of her second husband. There is considerable merit in the contention of counsel for the petitioner. Even otherwise, the Award was passed on 05.09.2007 i.e. more than four years ago. The amount has remained in fixed deposit during this period. Now the petitioner needs the money for business of her second husband. There is no reason to deny the release of the amount to the petitioner because the amount belongs to her and she is the best judge to utilize the same for her needs. 7. Notice of the revision petition is not required to be issued to the respondents, who have no concern with the amount in question. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.07.2011 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Application Annexure P-2 moved by the petitioner is allowed. Fixed Deposit amount of Rs.90,000/- of the petitioner lying in the bank is ordered to be released to her along with interest accrued thereon against proper receipt and identification. --------------