JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Parmatma Rai, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner met with an accident on 9.10.2003 and received severe injuries. The petitioner’s right leg was imputed. The petitioner initiated proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. The Tribunal gave an award dated 23.3.2007 determining a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-, as compensation plus interest. The Tribunal further directed that out of the total amount, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- would be deposited in a fixed deposit which would be renewable every 5 years and that the petitioner would be entitled to receive interest, if he so requires it to meet his personal expenses. It transpires that the Insurance Company deposited the amount of compensation and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was kept in a fixed deposit. It has also been stated that the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal. The petitioner moved an application under Section 151 to amend the award on the ground that he requires the money to purchase a land in order to enhance his earnings and consequently, requested for the encashment of the F.D.R. This application was rejected by the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition. 3. Before proceeding, it would be necessary to peruse the guidelines which was issued by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushma Thomas and others, (1994) 1 TAC 323. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted herein below. “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 amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposit 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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however, be allowed to be withdrawn.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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however, be allowed to be withdrawn.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 expending 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 a 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. (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.” 4. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines indicates that in case the Tribunal invested the compensation in a long term fixed deposit, the Tribunal would also consider the claim of the claimant for early withdrawal in case of an emergency under clause (viii) of the guidelines. 5. In Shaheen Bano v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and others, 2007 (2) TAC 755, this Court held that the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the application on the sole ground that the fixed deposit could not be encashed prematurely. The Court held that the Tribunal has to consider the bona fide purpose of the claimant for early withdrawal of the compensation and that the Tribunal could not deny the claimant on the sole ground that premature encashment could not be done. 6. In Yogendra Singh v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and others, 2005 (2) TAC 312, the Court held that the money invested by the Tribunal under the Award was the property of the claimant and it was always open to the claimant, who was a major, to encash the same in the manner he liked. The Court further held that neither the Tribunal, nor the Insurance Company had any right to object to the encashment of the money by the claimant, which was invested, and that, if there was a loss of interest while encashing the fixed deposit prematurely, it was at the risk of the claimant itself. 7. From a reading of the award, I find that the compensation has been kept in a fixed deposit for an unlimited period. The compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- would never be paid to the petitioner and that interest would only be paid, if the petitioner required it for his personal expenses. In my opinion, such a condition could not be imposed by the Tribunal under the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Thomas (supra). The petitioner is a major and if the amount is kept for an unlimited period, he would never enjoy the fruits of compensation awarded to him. In my opinion, such a condition could not be imposed by the Tribunal under the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Thomas (supra). The petitioner is a major and if the amount is kept for an unlimited period, he would never enjoy the fruits of compensation awarded to him. Further, from the impugned order I find that the Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that no amendment in the original order could be made. 8. In my opinion, the approach adopted by the Tribunal was patently erroneous and against the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Thomas (supra). Consequently, the Court finds that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal again to decide the application of the petitioner on merit and, if found bona fide, the amount would be released within six weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. ————