CHITRE, J. ( 1 ) NOTICE was issued to the insurance company which had deposited amount in the Claims Tribunal but none appeared. The question is totally dependent on interpreting the legal aspect of the matter and, therefore, this court is examining the order which is being assailed by this revision petition. ( 2 ) AN application was submitted by the petitioner before M. A. C. T. , Indore, which decided the said application by which the prayer was made by the petitioner for releasing the amount of award which has been invested by making reference to the observations made by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), by passing an order on 19. 8. 1999. The learned Judge pointed out the guideline Nos. (i) and (iii) which can be quoted as hereunder:" (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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may, however, be allowed to be withdrawn; (iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out in (i) above unless it is satisfied, for reasons to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 any existing business or for purchasing some property 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. " ( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal pointed out in para 4 of the order passed by it that it held the opinion that since the claimant decree-holder is reported to be semi-literate person and she does not require any amount for expanding any existing business or for purchasing some property for earning her livelihood, the directions contained in the guideline No. (i) are to be followed. ( 4 ) WHILE deciding the said application, the learned Member of the Tribunal quoted observations of this court in the matter of amar Singh v. Rajesh, 2001 ACJ 1003 (MP):"the Tribunal should have noted that it is not possible to point out all incidental needs in the judgment while giving the guidelines. ( 4 ) WHILE deciding the said application, the learned Member of the Tribunal quoted observations of this court in the matter of amar Singh v. Rajesh, 2001 ACJ 1003 (MP):"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 Claims tribunal has to use its wisdom for the purpose of finding out correct way for dealing with such prayers and petitions. The judgment of Apex Court in General manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), 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 Susamma Thomas case. 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. " ( 5 ) IN the matter of Mangibai v. Suresh, 2001 ACJ 1117 (MP), this court again interpreted the spirit of the observations of supreme Court in Susamma Thomas case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC ). In that case widow mangibai was faced with the difficulty of collecting the money for providing means to herself for bringing up her children when she was granted Rs. 10,570. The learned advocate appearing for Mangibai and her children had submitted in that case that in days of escalating prices, it was very difficult for such a widow to bring up four small children and to maintain herself also. 10,570. The learned advocate appearing for Mangibai and her children had submitted in that case that in days of escalating prices, it was very difficult for such a widow to bring up four small children and to maintain herself also. This court indicated in the said judgment that it was very difficult for such a widow to bring up her small children within that meagre amount and in addition to maintain herself by keeping her soul and virtue intact. This court indicated in that judgment that such a hapless widow cannot be permitted to look towards her bank account where the amount of award has been invested with hungry stomach and breathe happily by smelling the smell of that bank account forgetting the hunger, burning a fire in her stomach as well as in the stomach of her children. This court pointed out that she cannot be thrown on the streets searching for sanctuary at the risk of staking her soul and virtue. Fire of hunger is different altogether. It has also been indicated that when such a widow loses her soul and virtue what that bank account would be meaning and beaming for her and her children? ( 6 ) THOUGH the judgment in the matter of Mangibai's case, 2001 ACJ 1117 (MP), was not brought to the notice of learned member of the Tribunal, the judgment in the matter of Amar Singh's case, 2001 ACJ 1003 (MP), was brought to the notice of the learned Member of the Tribunal. But unfortunately the learned Member did not give due importance to the observations of this court in that judgment. ( 7 ) AS it has come to the notice of this court that the subordinate Judges who are occupying the posts of Member of Claims tribunal are misreading the observations of the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas case, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), this court is now again required to bring it to their notice as to what is the impact of the ratio in the case of Susamma Thomas. In Susamma thomas case, the Apex Court observed:"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 attaining majority. In Susamma thomas case, the Apex Court observed:"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 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. 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-literate 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 any existing business or for purchasing some property 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 realization 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; (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 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. " ( 8 ) HERE the learned Member did not notice that while dealing with clause (ii)the sentence which has been used by the apex Court is notable and has to be understood in proper spirit. As it is necessary, it is repeated: "in the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if the lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property, such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw, etc. , to earn a living". It means that the words like agricultural implements, rickshaw have been used for the purpose of giving an indicator. That is not to be treated as complete restriction or that is not to be treated as part, totally preventing the Tribunal from exercising its wisdom and the legal jurisdiction. The Tribunal has to understand that two words have been used 'movable' or 'immovable property'. A comma has been provided thereafter and thereafter words 'such as' have been used and thereby again comma has been provided. Again while giving the guideline under head (iii) "in the case of semi-literate 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 any existing business or for purchasing some property 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". ( 9 ) IN the present petition, the prayer has been made by Mukhtyarbi, a widow, mother of deceased who was 17 years old when he died in the said motor accident. Obviously, he was not having a wife which could have been left behind as a widow. How it is expected that the widowed mother Mukhtyarbi could be interested in starting a business? Obviously, he was not having a wife which could have been left behind as a widow. How it is expected that the widowed mother Mukhtyarbi could be interested in starting a business? She would be happy in residing in permanent house and exactly for that purpose she made a prayer to the tribunal to release the amount for paying the remaining instalment of the price of the said house. The agreement to purchase the property had been produced before the member. In addition to that, voucher of rs. 10,000 payment was produced before the Tribunal. Thus, this agreement and the payment of Rs. 10,000 was sufficient enough for the learned Tribunal to think reasonably towards the prayer made by the said widow. For ensuring that the same amount would be paid for a right cause, the Tribunal could have insisted for the voucher of the payment of that amount from the petitioner, in addition to the certified copy of the sale deed. That option was available with the Tribunal but that was not adopted and the prayer was dismissed. ( 10 ) THIS court is again reiterating the view that such petitions should not be dismissed in such a way. The Tribunal should satisfy itself that the amount is really needed for a bona fide purpose and the said amount is really used for that bona fide purpose. If the amount is not used for the bona fide purpose then not only the petitioner but the person presenting the petition would be put to moral obligation to answer the court in satisfactory way. This practice can be used for the purpose of preventing extravagant expenses and utilisation of the said amount, but the needy persons should not be turned out of the court on flimsy grounds and the grounds which are not sufficiently supported by a good reasoning. Thus, the order which is put to challenge is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to move another application supported by necessary documents which would satisfy the Tribunal for its genuine need in addition to one undertaking in writing sworn by affidavit that the said amount would be used for the purpose of purchasing the house which the widow Mukhtyarbi wants to purchase for living safely under its roof. The Tribunal is directed to have a broader approach in this matter as well as in all matters which would be coming in future before it. In satisfying itself the Tribunal should be circumspect, well informed by human experience and reality of life. Ivory tower approach has to be discarded. Appeal allowed. .