ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Shri M.S. Chouhan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Gupta, counsel for Insurance Company/Respondent No. 3, which was the contesting party in respect of said claim in context with an accident took place by use of a motor vehicle. The matter is finally decided at this stage with the consent and desire of advocates appearing for contesting parties as this aspect is connected with speedy disposal of the claims which are being tried by M.A.C.T. and which are placed before Lok Adalat. 2. In the present matter the petitioner had filed a claim for getting compensation on account of injury sustained by the use of a motor vehicle. The claim petition was laid before Lok Adalat for speedy disposal keeping in view the benevolent spirit of the enactment. The petitioner and opponent No. 3 amicably settled the dispute in Lok Adalat and an award was passed. After said award was passed the petitioner moved an application, for the purpose of getting the entire amount of the award as he wanted to repay the loan of Rs. 40,000/- which he had obtained for the purpose of his medical treatment in Choithram Hospital, Indore, by pointing out that the creditor has issued notice to him demanding repayment of the said loan and threatening him that in the event of failure of the payment there would be a suit filed against him in the Court. 3. Few facts need to be stated for understanding the grievance of the petitioner. The tribunal which was cession over the claim petitions had granted him the award which was accepted amicably before the Lok Adalat. The said amount of award was invested in fixed deposit and out of that, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was given to him. 4. Shri Chouhan, appearing for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor person having a service and is unable to repay the loan which happens to be to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-, from his salary. He submitted that if he does not pay that amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the creditor, he would be required to again face a litigation in the Civil Court. Apart from that, he submitted that petitioner is required to spend money for the purpose of follow up check up and incidental medical treatment. 40,000/-, from his salary. He submitted that if he does not pay that amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the creditor, he would be required to again face a litigation in the Civil Court. Apart from that, he submitted that petitioner is required to spend money for the purpose of follow up check up and incidental medical treatment. Shri Chouhan further submitted that the expenditure of medical treatment would be more and if the amount of Rs. 40,000/- is not disbursed to him as prayed by him, he would be put to hardship and humiliation. Shri P.K. Gupta, appearing for opponent No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd., submitted that Insurance Company does not have any objection for the purpose of disbursement of that amount to him. 5. After perusing the order under challenge it seems that the concerned tribunal misread the spirit of the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of General Manger, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Sussamma Thomas and Ors. reported in 1994(39) M.P.Law Journal 520. In the said matter the Supreme Court has held : "The claims Tribunal while awarding compensation in accident cases should bear in mind 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 attending 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. 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 ruse to withdraw money; (iii) In the case of semi-illiterate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (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 an existing business or for purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii) above for earning his livelihood in which case the Tribunal should ordinarily 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 in (i) above; (iv) 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 deposits 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 F.D.R. can be liquidated." 6. The tribunal has not understood the spirit behind the guidelines which the Supreme Court has given in the judgment of General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. v. Sussamma Thomas (supra). The Supreme Court has taken utmost care to see that the money awardable to the claimant as compensation should not be spent out by him extravagantly, but at the same time the Supreme Court has taken care to see that the said money should be utilised properly, reasonably for genuine needs of such claimants. Lok Adalats are held for the purpose of giving speedy relief to the persons who are coming to the courts for the purpose of getting relief. The relevant provisions dealing with the claim petitions preferred by the victims who sustained injuries, permanent disability, temporary disability and in cases of deaths, should be applied by adopting benevolent approach and attitude. The litigants should be encouraged to come forward before Lok Adalats for the purpose of settling their disputes amicably, and speedily. It should be seen that the arrears of such matter are wiped off at early date by amicable settlement. The approach taken by the tribunal is not proper, desirable and benevolent keeping pace with the benevolent spirit of the enactment and Lok Adalat movement. 7. If the amount which a claimant is entitled to receive, is not given to him at least substantially, why the litigant would be coming to Lok Adalat for the purpose of attempting to settle his dispute amicably? It is common experience that in "Lok Adalat" the contesting parties reduce their claims reasonably in discussion which leads to amicable settlement. The spirit is to get just relief and forgo unreasonable part of the demand. Therefore, it is presumed that the claimant comes down, at the same time advisory also comes down from the stands taken by it in the litigation by way of written statement at the advice of mediators. That is how the amicable settlements are arrived at in "Lok Adalats". If the parties are denied the advantage of getting the substantial amount from such awards, I am afraid, the parties would not be interested in coming forward with eager mood. That is how the amicable settlements are arrived at in "Lok Adalats". If the parties are denied the advantage of getting the substantial amount from such awards, I am afraid, the parties would not be interested in coming forward with eager mood. Now the courts have decided to hold Lok Adalats frequently and in that context "Permanent Lok Adalats" have been also established. The main purpose in doing this exercise is to see that arrears are wiped off and persons coming to the courts should get relief at least within reasonable time. 8. True, the amount awarded to a claimant or his heirs, should be invested in fixed deposits, if he is unable to take care of his money. The widows, minors and illiterate persons cannot be thrown at the hands of tricky persons in the society who would be keeping their greedy eyes on their money, so awarded. But a person who is in service and who is residing in big city like Indore, would be definitely taking care of his money and he would be using it rationally. A victim after getting injuries in an accident is taken to a hospital initially which is available in close proximity. Thereafter he is taken to the hospital of his choice. If such a victim is entitled to choose a hospital of his choice, he cannot be asked to get the medical treatment in a particular hospital or government hospital. He is entitled to have costly medical treatment also in sophisticated hospital. After all, in such situation always he is interested in safeguarding his safety and health. In the present matter the petitioner had taken medical treatment in sophisticated hospital like Choithram Hospital, Indore. In doing that, he might have incurred substantial expenditure. It is also possible that he might have taken a loan of Rs. 40,000/- from a creditor and that creditor has now issued a notice to him demanding repayment of said amount and at the same time threatening him for suing him in the court. If the petitioner is not given the amount which he needs for purpose of repaying the loan, I am afraid, there would be nothing but putting him to hardship and humiliation. When he is having an amount which is receivable by him, why he should face a suit in the Civil Court? If the petitioner is not given the amount which he needs for purpose of repaying the loan, I am afraid, there would be nothing but putting him to hardship and humiliation. When he is having an amount which is receivable by him, why he should face a suit in the Civil Court? Why he should attend the court for that purpose by taking the leave? Why he should engage a lawyer and incur further expenditure? Certainly he should not be put to such worries. 9. The tribunal should have noted that it is not possible to point out all incidental needs in the judgment while giving the guidelines. The categories have been mentioned but that does not mean that the tribunal is restricted to those categories only. There may be different needs and the tribunal is to see whether the need is genuine; whether it is necessary for the said claimant to get the amount for fulfilling the said need. While giving the amount to him it should always be seen whether the amount is sufficient enough to meet his need? It should be seen whether he is interested in spending that amount extravagantly? The test would be always different, depending on different needs put forth. The claim tribunal has to use its wisdom for the purpose of finding out correct way for dealing with such prayers and petitions. The judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager, KSRTC v. S. Thomas's case (supra) and the guidelines given therein, in my view, are not preventing the tribunal to use its own reasonable discretion. It is not proper to reject the prayers of all such needy persons by misreading the guidelines given by Supreme Court in S. Thomas's case (supra). 10. The tribunal should adopt a reasonable approach while dealing with such petitions and prayers, by using reasonable attitude and by using appropriate discretion, keeping in view the benevolent spirit behind the enactment. 11. The tribunal has to inform itself about the difficulties and needs of such claimants who have amicably settled their disputes in "Lok Adalats". The claimants are also require to face remnant effects of such accidents which cloud them even after such mishaps are over. Thus, the petition is hereby allowed and the tribunal is hereby directed to pay sum of Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand) to the petitioner by crossed cheque. The claimants are also require to face remnant effects of such accidents which cloud them even after such mishaps are over. Thus, the petition is hereby allowed and the tribunal is hereby directed to pay sum of Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand) to the petitioner by crossed cheque. The petitioner is hereby directed to produce the receipt/s given by said creditors which is/are executed in legal way. That receipt/s is/are to be produced before the tribunal by the petitioner on 23-8-1999. In the event of failure, the tribunal is to make reference to this court and in the event of failure the petitioner would be inviting the legal consequential action. C.C. in seven days.