This is an appeal by owner of the vehicle under Sec tion 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award directing pay ment of compensation to respondent. 2. Appellant is owner of a heavy vehicle having 35 feets in length. When the vehicle was moving on the road on 27-11-1984 at about 2. 40 p. m. , it hit respondent resulting injuries on the body of respondent, who was moving on a cycle alongwith another. It is the case of claimant that because of injuries sustained by him he after getting medical treatment has become permanently disable. Initially he made claim for lessor amount an subse quently he has amended the claim stating that the lawyer on when he has depended could not appreciate the nature of the injuries for which lessor com pensation was claimed. This amendment has been allowed and parties have produced documents on the basis of amended claim. 3. Case of appellant is that when driver of the vehicle found that a rickshaw occupied by children was coming from the front and respondent was moving on his cycle with another on the left side, in order to avoid accident with the rickshaw driver of the vehicle turned the vehicle towards its left. Front portion of the vehicle crossed the respondent, but respondent was hit by fuel tank at the rear. Thus, respondent is responsible for the injuries sustained by him and driver of the vehicle is not negligent as he had no chance to mark the cyclist after the front portion crossed him. 4. Tribunal has considered all the materials on record and has found that the driver of the vehicle was negligent and the injuries sustained by res pondent permanently disabled him for which he is entitled to the compensation claimed, which includes the amount spent by respondent for his medical treatment. This award is being assailed before us by appellant. 5. Learned counsel for appellant Shri Sinha vary strenuously contended that in case where the accident was on account of dashing of the vehicle from rear part of vehicle entire irresponsibility cannot be put on the driver of the vehicle as he has no chance to see the behind. It cannot be a general rule tho ugh on the facts and circumstances of the case it may be possible. It cannot be a general rule tho ugh on the facts and circumstances of the case it may be possible. It is to be kept in mind that the vehicle is heavy one about 35 feets long and driver of such vehicle is required to be more cautious then any other lighter vehicle. It is not disputed that a rickshaw was found coming from the front injured is moving on cycle of the left side. In such situation the driver should have anticipate that where is likelihood of accident either hitting rickshaw or hitting cyclist on left side. Driver anticipated first on to avoid which he turned left side. On the fact of the case we are satisfied that it is the negligence of driver. Thus, Union of India, who is owner of the vehicle is liable for negligence of its driver. 6. Coming to quantum we find that Tribunal has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and has determined just compensation. Although, Mr. Sinha wanted to utilise mathematics for reduction of compensation, it can be said that mathematics in such circumstance may be good servant, but cannot be a master of situation for determination of compensation. Court with judicial experience has to determine the reasonableness of the compensation for which Parliament has used the term just compensation. 7. Doctor has been examined in this case. Other evidence is there in support of the medical treatment undergone. Doctor has clearly given the opinion that appellant is permanently disabled. It is on the record that appellant is young man aged about 32 years. He has a long way to move even if average longevity of a male of India is taken to be 70 years. In such situation, compensation awarded cannot be said to be unreasonable to interfere with the same. 8. As both contentions of Mr. Sinha have no substance, we are not inclined to admit this appeal as there is likelihood of delay in payment to the injured. 9. In such situation, compensation awarded cannot be said to be unreasonable to interfere with the same. 8. As both contentions of Mr. Sinha have no substance, we are not inclined to admit this appeal as there is likelihood of delay in payment to the injured. 9. Before parting, we would like to observe that Tribunal is not only required to assess compensation and direct the payment thereof, but also is an adjudicator of social justice and is required to see that the compensation is properly utilised and man supporting is not deprived on the compensation awarded and would not be spending away the same because he was getting lump sum by making proper arrangement for the amount payable. Tribunal has directed that a cheque of entire amount shall be issued to claimant. This may deprive claimant as proper use of the same. We direct the Tribunal to consider the same and modify the order. As we see from the order about 50,000 might have been spent towards medical treatment and litigation expenses in this case. This amount should be paid to the claimant in cash or in cheque so that he can discharge his liability. Another amount of Rs. 10,000 can be paid so that he can maintain himself for same time. Balance amount is to be invested in fixed deposit in a Bank of the choice of claimant so that he can get regular interest out of the fixed deposit to maintain himself. This fixed deposit to be kept with a condition that it shall not be liable to encumbrance at any time when claimant is urgent need of more money, he shall apply to the Tribunal for release or some amount out of the fixed deposit giving reasons and after considering such necessity Tribunal shall direct release of the amount from the fixed deposit as it deems proper. On the feets and circumstances of the case we find this to be best arrangement to protect the interest of the claimant. Appellant is directed to comply with our directions and issue two crossed cheques in name of the claimant, one of Rs. 60,000 and other for balance amount, which should be deposited with the Tribunal instead of being handed over to the claimant directly. 10. Appellant is directed to comply with our directions and issue two crossed cheques in name of the claimant, one of Rs. 60,000 and other for balance amount, which should be deposited with the Tribunal instead of being handed over to the claimant directly. 10. In result, as we have already stated, we arc not inclined to interfere with the award and appeal is dismissed summarily under Order XLI, Rule 11, C. P. C. Certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties within a week. Appeal dismissed. .