Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 31.7.2004 passed by Motor accident Claim Tribunal by which the application of the petitioner for release of the amount deposited with Tribunal has been rejected. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal vide its award dated 3.10.2001 awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000.00 along with 9% interest from the date of filing of claim petition. In pursuance of the award an amount of Rs.2,24,250/- was deposited. The motor accident claims tribunal after receipt of the money passed order dated 15.3.2004 that an amount of Rs.1,24,000/- be invested for one year a fixed deposit. Petitioner on 15.7.2004 moved an application praying that petitioner be paid the entire amount. The petitioner in the application vaguely stated that she required the amount for business and other important works. The Tribunal observed that petitioner has already been given 1,00,000.00 lack in case, and the Tribunal observed that in the application it has not been stated that which business will be done by the petitioner and no other details have been given.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the Tribunal while giving an award dated 3.10.2001 did not put any condition for the release of the amount, hence the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reject the application of the petitioner. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. Petitioner while returning by Vehicle Tata Sumo, the vehicle U.P.084/5552 negligently hit in which the daughter of claimant Kumari Sonali Jain died. It is true that in the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that no condition for release of the amount was mentioned. However, when the petitioner made an application for releasing the amount, the same has been rejected. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that when no condition was put in the award, the application for release of the amount cannot be rejected. The guide lines which have been laid down by the Apex Court for release of the amount awarded in compensation has to be kept in mind by the Tribunal while releasing the amount. The Apex Court in 1994 ACJ 1 General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation versus Susamma Thomas and others laid down following in paragraph 16 and 17. "16. Pursuant to the earlier orders of this court a sum of Rs.3,98,000/- had been invested out of which a sum of Rs.3,60,000 is invested in a nationalised Bank. It is appropriate that the appellant shall deposit the balance of the amount together with accrued interest in the Tribunal. The Tribunal will take into account what measures of safety are required to be adopted to protect the interests of the minors. It is also necessary to bear in mind that even in respect of the claimants who are sui juris, their interests, if they are illiterate or semiliterate, must also be protected from possible exploitation. 17. In case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this court in Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, 1991 (4) Supreme Court cases 584, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the neneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujrat High Court in Muljibhai Ajasrambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1983 ACJ 57 (Gujrat), this court offered the following guidelines: (i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may, however, be allowed to be withdrawn, (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property, such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw, etc. to earn a living, the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a rogue to withdraw money. (iii) In the case of semiliterate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out in (I) above unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding as mentioned in (ii) above for earning his livelihood in which case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. (iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above, subject to the relaxation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the compensation awarded to him thinks it necessary to so order : (v) In the case of widows the claims Tribunal should invariably follow the procedure set out (i) above, (vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is necessary, the Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment. (vii) In all cases in which investment in long term fixed deposit is made it should be on condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be. (viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of an emergency. To meet with such a contingency, if the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims Tribunal may invest it in more than one fixed deposit so that if need be one such FDR. can be Liquidated.
(3.) THESE guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases. The observation of the Apex Court in paragraph 16 is that the Tribunal will take into account as to what measures of safety are required to be adopted to protect the interests of the minors.;