( 1 ) EXTENSIVE protection, some times threatens the very existence of what is sought to be protected. This revision presents an instance of that nature. ( 2 ) THE husband of the petitioner died in an accidert, in the year 1995. Herself and her daughter, by name Swarnalatha, filed o. P. No. 180 of 1995, in the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-First Additional District judge, Ranagareddy District. On the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties to nat O. P. , the Lok Adalat passed a consent award for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation. Out of this amount, a sum of rs. 25,000/- each, was paid to the petitioner and her daughter. Out of the balance of rs. 2,10,000,-, Rs. 1,05,000/- each, was directed to be kept in fixed deposit, in the name of the petitioner and her daughter, for a period of 30 months. The amount covered by fixed deposit, in favour of the daughter of the petitioner, was permitted to be withdrawn, at the time of her marriage. The fixed deposit in favour of the petitioner had matured in february, 2000. ( 3 ) PETITIONER filed I. A. No. 2535 of 2003, before the Tribunal, seeking permission to withdraw the amount. She pleaded that she needs the amount to repay the loans, borrowed by her for construction of the house. Through its order dated 22-10-2003, the tribunal did not accede to the request, but permitted the petitioner to withdraw the interest alone. ( 4 ) SRI K. L. N. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the fixed deposit had matured the petitioner is entitled to be paid the said amount, as of right, and that there was no justification for the Tribunal in refusing the permission. He contends that the condition imposed by the Lok Adalat, as to keeping the amount in deposit for a period of 30 months, had worked, itself, out, with the expiry of that period. He states that the petitioner had incurred debts, for the purpose of constructing a house, and is required to pay interest thereon, whereas the amount awarded to her is withheld, contrary to law. ( 5 ) STRICTLY speaking, there is no opposition from any of the respondents. Though they were served with notices, they did not enter appearance, because they have (no) stakes in the matter. ( 5 ) STRICTLY speaking, there is no opposition from any of the respondents. Though they were served with notices, they did not enter appearance, because they have (no) stakes in the matter. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the amount of rs. 1,05,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit, for a period of 30 months only. It matured in February 2000. There was no direction, either in the award, or by any court, that the deposit shall be for eternity. This court does not approve the approach of the tribunal, in dealing with the genuine claim of the petitioner. Whatever may have been the discretion of the Tribunal to direct withdrawal of the amount, before expiry of the stipulated period, it has no control over the amount, after the expiry of the term for which, it was directed to be keptin deposit. For all practical purposes, the Tribunal treated the petitioner as a beggar before it, and had in fact, denied the very benefit of the award in favour of the petitioner. ( 7 ) THERE is no provision in the Motor vehicles Act, or C. P. C. , which mandates that the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants, in the petitions filed under the Act, be kept in a fixed deposit. It was through judicial pronouncements, that the Tribunals were required to ensure that the amount, awarded as compensation, is not spent away indiscriminately, lest the dependents are driven to penury. The arrangements ordered by the Tribunals, as tomaking deposits of the amounts so awarded, are not in perpetuity. Many a time, the agesof the parties and their probable requirements etc. , are taken into consideration. In the ordinary course of the things, soon after the period, for which the amounts were kept in deposit, expires, the concerned party shall be entitled to withdraw the same, without any necessity of obtaining orders from the Tribunal. However, since the deposits are made pursuant to the orders of the Tribunals, and the identification of the parties becomes relevant, applications are made for withdrawal of such amounts. There is neither any precedent nor any enacted law, which empowers the Tribunals to withhold the amount from the parties, after the expiry of the period stipulated by it. Such a course tends to deny the very benefit of the award, to the party. There is neither any precedent nor any enacted law, which empowers the Tribunals to withhold the amount from the parties, after the expiry of the period stipulated by it. Such a course tends to deny the very benefit of the award, to the party. It is not uncommon that keeping the amount in deposit, indefinitely, would reduce the utility of the same. ( 8 ) A decade had elapsed since the death of the husband of the petitioner, and the very purpose of providing for payment of compensation, under the Motor Vehicles Act, was defeated. The Tribunal did not care to offer even a semblance of reasoning, in support of its order. The petitioner was subjected to enormous loss due to the decreased rates of interest. Withholding of the money beyond 30 months amounts to impropriety on the part of the bank as well as the Tribunal. If such steps are permitted, the o. Ps under the Act, are prone to become suits for administration and the immediate beneficiaries are the banks, where the deposits are kept. The order under revision reflects an indifferent way of dealing with the matters. The Tribunal was oblivious to the necessities of the petitioner. ( 9 ) TO ensure that such instances do not recur, it is directed that wherever the amounts are directed to be kept in deposit for a particular period, the Trbunal or Lok Adalat, as the case may be shall not refuse withdrawal of the amount, after the expiry of such period. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the C. R. P. is allowed, and the Tribunal is directed to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount, together with the interest accrued on the amount, forthwith.