Judgment :- Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is against the judgment dated 6.8.2002 in O.P.No.18619 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition. 2. The appellant was injured in a motor accident and he filed O.P.(MV)No.540 of 1987 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The accident was on 20.12.1986. At that time, the appellant was aged 22 years and was conducting a tutorial college. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered head injury with fractured skull, depressed fracture of temporal bone, depressed fracture of the paraetal bone and minimal compression of cervical spine. Considering the nature of the injuries and the disability suffered by the appellant, the M.A.C.T. awarded a total compensation of Rs.68,800/-. Dissatisfied with the award the appellant filed M.F.A.No.815 of 1992 in the High Court. As per the judgment dated 18.11.1999 in M.F.A.No.815 of 1992, the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,22,000/- with 12% interest from 2.5.1987 till payment. The second respondent, National Insurance Company deposited the amount awarded by the Court and that the amount was put in deposit as directed by the Tribunal. Part of the amount was allowed to be withdrawn by the Tribunal. 3. On 15.9.2001, the appellant was subjected to C.T.Scan of the brain. On the basis of the C.T.Scan, the appellant was advised to consume anti convulsants for the life time since he is still having fits due to the head injury. Hence, the appellant filed I.A.No.5049 of 2001 in O.P.(MV)No.540 of 1987 praying for the withdrawal of the balance amount of compensation lying in fixed deposit. In the said application, the appellant has stated that ever since his discharge from the hospital on 11.1.1987, he has been continuously undergoing treatment and that he has to take anti convulsants throughout his life. It was also stated that he continued to suffer from epilepsy and fits and hence, he could not avoid taking the medicines. It was further stated that on account of the head injury, his hearing was affected and he was also suffering from other serious ailments. It was specifically stated that he wanted to continue the treatment in a private Super Speciality Hospital and therefore, the amount of Rs.95,936/- lying under deposit was urgently required by him. It was further stated that on account of the head injury, his hearing was affected and he was also suffering from other serious ailments. It was specifically stated that he wanted to continue the treatment in a private Super Speciality Hospital and therefore, the amount of Rs.95,936/- lying under deposit was urgently required by him. Accordingly, he prayed that the amount of Rs.95,936/- be released to him to enable him to continue the treatment. Along with the application, the appellant also produced all the available medical records. The said I.A.No.5049 of 2001 in O.P.(MV)No.540/1987 was disposed of by the M.A.C.T., Thiruvananthapuram on 17.1.2002 as per Ext.P4 order. The said order is extracted hereunder: “This Tribunal cannot release the entire compensation amount over looking the direction of the Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of release. So the prayer to release the full amount is disallowed. From the documents produced, I am satisfied that the petitioner bonafide needs money for his treatment. So far the time being be is allowed to withdraw Rs.25,000/-.” 4. Not being satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed O.P.No.18619 of 2002 praying for a direction to the first respondent, M.A.C.T., Thiruvananthapuram to reconsider I.A.No.5049 of 2001 in O.P.(MV)No.540/87 and to grant the prayers in the said I.A. and to allow the appellant to withdraw the entire amount. The said Original Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge at the admission stage on 6.8.2002. The learned Single Judge, after noting that the tribunal had allowed the petitioner to withdraw Rs.25,00/- , held that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Original Petition, the petitioner in the Original Petition has filed this Writ Appeal. 5. From Ext.P4 order, it is clear that from the documents produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was satisfied that the appellant bona fide needed money for his treatment. However, the Tribunal observed that the Tribunal cannot release the entire compensation amount over looking the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of release of compensation amount. Hence, in spite of being satisfied about the genuineness of the requirement of the claimant and his bona fides the Tribunal disallowed the prayer for release of the full amount and allowed the appellant to withdraw only an amount of Rs.25,00/-. 6. Hence, in spite of being satisfied about the genuineness of the requirement of the claimant and his bona fides the Tribunal disallowed the prayer for release of the full amount and allowed the appellant to withdraw only an amount of Rs.25,00/-. 6. Obviously, the Tribunal had in its mind, the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. Sussamma Thomas, 1994(1) K.L.T. 67. In the above case, the Honourable Supreme Court directed that the following guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases: “(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term 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 in 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 rouge (sic - ruse) to withdraw money: (iii) in the case of semi-literate 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 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 do 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 of 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 directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be; (viii) In all cases, the Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of 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.” 7. The Honourable Supreme Court issued the above guidelines in order to ‘safeguard the feed from being flittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation’. Even as per the above guidelines, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lump sum payment for effecting purchase of any movable or immovable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws, etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-literate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal 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 for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. The expression used in guideline No.(iv) is that “in the case of literate person also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in (i) above”, whereas in guideline Nos.(i), (ii) (iii) and (v), the expression used is that in “the Tribunal should”. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No.(i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, unfortunately the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposits. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi-literate and literate persons. This is happening in spite of the Official Memorandum No.D1 (B) – 41320/99 dated 26.7.1999 issued by M.A.C.Ts. in the light of the directions given by the Honourable Supreme Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. Sussamma Thomas, (supra). In the said Official Memorandum, this Court had stated that the guidelines had been issued by the Supreme Court to safeguard the interest of claimants, in particular minors and illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. It was specifically clarified that the guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand when considering an application seeking release of the money. It was also observed that the directions of the Supreme Court cast the responsibility on the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders after examining each case in its own merits. It was further stated that the Tribunals were to exercise their discretion in a proper, just, equitable and reasonable way while passing orders on applications seeking withdrawal of the entire/part of compensation amounts awarded on just, equitable and reasonable grounds. 8. It is unfortunate that even in cases where there is no possibility or chance of the ‘feed being flittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation’, the investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a mater of routine, totally ignoring the spirit of the directions given by the Supreme Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit even without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him. In effect and practice the exception has been made general. The Tribunals are disposing of the applications of the claimants for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind to the spirit and content of the guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardships to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to be inhibited by a wrong impression that in view of the guidelines given by the Honourable Supreme Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be directed to be invest in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant event if it is required by him. Hence a change in the attitude and approach of the Tribunal is highly necessary in the interest of justice. 9. In the present case, the accident occurred on 20.12.1986. The award was passed by the Tribunal on 27.2.1991. Even after fifteen years from the date of the accident, the injured/appellant is undergoing treatment. He produced necessary medical records before the Tribunal to substantiate the need for continuing the treatment in a super speciality hospital. He clearly stated in the application that the money was required for undergoing the treatment. The amount lying in deposit was only Rs.95,936/-. The Tribunal was satisfied from the documents produced by the appellant that the appellant bona fide needed money for his treatment. But the Tribunal felt that he was helpless in view of the guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court. The Tribunal proceeded on the wrong assumption that the Tribunal cannot release the entire amount of compensation. The Tribunal was satisfied from the documents produced by the appellant that the appellant bona fide needed money for his treatment. But the Tribunal felt that he was helpless in view of the guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court. The Tribunal proceeded on the wrong assumption that the Tribunal cannot release the entire amount of compensation. The Tribunal did not take note of guideline No.(vi), according to which, in personal injury cases, if further treatment is necessary, the Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be recorded in writing, can permit withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment. In our view, the appellant was entitled to the relief claimed in I.A.No.5049 of 2001 in view of guideline No.(vi). The Tribunal also ignored that the appellant is a literate person, that during the period of accident he was conducting a tutorial college and that there is no possibility of the feed from being flittered away by him owing to ignorance or illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation. Though the total amount remaining in Deposit was Rs.95,936/-, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to withdraw only an amount of Rs.25,000/-. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was entitled to get the entire amount released and the Tribunal was competent to order such release. The Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to grant the relief which the appellant was entitled to. The learned Single Judge also erred in dismissing the Original Petition. 10. In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside. O.P.No.18619 of 2002 is allowed and the first respondent, M.A.C.T., Thiruvananthapuram is directed to permit the petitioner to withdraw the entire amount lying in deposit. As per the interim order dated 1.10.2002 passed in C.M.P.NO.6079 of 2002, this Court had directed the first respondent to allow the appellant to withdraw a further sum of Rs.35,000/-. In view of our finding that I.A.No.5049/01 was liable to be allowed in full by the Tribunal, we direct the first respondent Tribunal to allow the appellant to withdraw the entire balance amount of compensation lying in deposit in O.P.(MV)No.540 of 1987. 11. The Writ Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.