( 1 ) THE petitioner-appellant filed the present C. M. A. aggrieved by the order made by the Railway Claims Tribunal secunderabad at Taranaka, Secunderbad made in I. A. No. 499 of 2002 in O. A. A. No. 304 of 1999, dated 14-11-2002. ( 2 ) IT is stated that the appellant herein is the claimant in the above claim petition on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal. Secunderabad Bench and the appellant filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents on account of his son s death in railway accident occurred on 26-11-1999 with Salda Express at Khanna punjab, and the Railway Claims Tribunal allowed the claim in part and awarded rs. 4,04,000/- by way of compensation. It was further stated that initially the appellant-petitioner was permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 29,000/- out of the compensation awarded and the rest of the amount be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application seeking permission to withdraw an amount of rs. 3,00,000/- for purchasing a shop at kurnool and for other expenditure. The aforesaid Tribunal had permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,73,000/- with a direction that the said amount should be given to the vendor of the shop through the registrar at the time of registration of the property and that the appellant was also given liberty to file an application for further release. Accordingly, the appellant filed the present application with supporting evidence, seeking permission of the Tribunal to withdraw an amount of rs. 1,00,000/-, and the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. ( 3 ) SRI A. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, counsel representing the appellant had drawn my attention to Section 18 (2) of the Railway claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as act in short ). The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to section 23 of the Act dealing with appeals and had submitted that as a person aggrieved with the impugned order, the present C. M. A. is preferred. The learned counsel explained that the reasons given by the appellant-petitioner, seeking permission to withdraw the amount are bona fide reasons, and hence, the dismissal of the application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, secunderabad Bench at Taranaka is totally unsustainable. The learned counsel explained that the reasons given by the appellant-petitioner, seeking permission to withdraw the amount are bona fide reasons, and hence, the dismissal of the application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, secunderabad Bench at Taranaka is totally unsustainable. ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri B. H. R. Chowdary, counsel representing respondents had submitted that in view of the guidelines laid down in a decision in The General Manager, kerala State Road Transport Corporation, trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, the Tribunals under the Act also have been following the same guidelines. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the guidelines which had been specified in the aforesaid decision. ( 5 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 6 ) THE decision referred to is a case dealing with compensation for death in motor accident. But, however, the Apex court had laid down certain guidelines at para No. 17 and it may be appropriate to extract para No. 17 of the said Judgment. It is thus: in a 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. , and others v. Union of india and others, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being flittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High court in Muljibhal Ajarambhal Harijan and others v. United India Insurance Co. ,. Ltd. , and others, 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. 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 rouse 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 and 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; (vii) 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" these guidelines should be borne in mind by the tribunals in the case of compensation in accident cases. ( 7 ) IN view of the same, these guidelines are to be borne in mind by the tribunals in case of compensation in accident cases. In the present case, in the light of the direction already given, the present appellant- petitioner, bona fide, filed the present application in I. A. No. 499 of 2002 in o. A. A. No. 304 of 1999 on the file of the railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad bench Praying for permission to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. But, however, as can be seen from the nature of the order, the application was dismissed on untenable grounds, no doubt, addressing the letter to the Sub-Registrar. ( 8 ) IN view of the bona fides, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the appellant-petitioner is hereby permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as prayed for in I. A. No. 499 of 2002 in O. A. A. No. 304 of 1999 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, secunderabad Bench at Taranaka. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 14-11-2002 made in I. A. No. 499 of 2002 in O. A. A. No. 304 of 1999 on the file of the Railway claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.