JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The present Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment/award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 148 of 1998 on 25.8.2006 whereby the respondent Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the appellant from the date of filing of the claim case subject to production of her succession certificate before the Claims Tribunal. 2. The fact of the case in short was that while the deceased Ganesh Karmali was sitting on a "chabutra" (Platform), engaged in gossiping with his co-villager Rameshwar Ram by the side of the road near Bharat Metal at Kuju, the offending truck bearing registration No. BPL-5935 dashed him causing injuries on his head as a result of which he instantaneously died at the spot. The co-villager Rameshwar Ram also sustained injuries and in the same sequence an Ambassador Car bearing registration No. BPY-5436 also sustained damage giving rise to Mandu P.S. Case No. 93 of 1998 on 27.3.1998 has been instituted. 3. The contention of the appellant was two fold viz. (i) That the compensation awarded to her was inadequate and (ii) The production of succession certificate by the claimant- appellant Most. Gudaki Devi for receiving payment of claim amount was uncalled for. 4. Learned Counsel submitted that the monthly income of the deceased assessed @ Rs. 1,050/- was of wrong notion as against the settled principle of law that even an unknown earning person dies, his monthly income could be assessed Rs. 1,500/- per month and that multiplier of 20 was an improper application for the calculation of the accumulated claim amount. 5. The impugned judgment/award indicated that the claimant-appellant was a mentally retarded lady and her marriage with the deceased and she being the legal heir/legal representative of the deceased could not be disputed through the evidence beyond doubt, particularly when the owner of the truck in question and the Insurer Oriental Insurance Company denied the fact that she was the heir and legal representative of the deceased and therefore, a succession certificate was demanded from the claimant for the withdrawal as also medical fitness certificate to the satisfaction of the tribunal. 6. We further find that while adjudicating the issue No. 1. Whether the case is maintainable or not? 7. 6. We further find that while adjudicating the issue No. 1. Whether the case is maintainable or not? 7. The tribunal decided it in favour of the claimant by observing that: Since, the present claim case has been filed by the claimant as wife of the deceased who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident, the present claim case appears to be maintainable in law. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is also decided against the opposite parties. No cross objection has been file in respect of such finding of the tribunal by the respondents. 8. In the facts and circumstances, we find that there was no necessity for the claimant-appellant to obtain a succession certificate for withdrawal of the awarded amount as being the only heir and legal representative of the deceased. 9. By the order dated 9.1.2008 this Court has observed that: Before disposing of the appeal, we direct the father of the claimant to produce the claimant before the Director, RINPAS, Ranchi. The Doctor concerned shall examine the claimant and submit a report to this Court by 16th of January, 2008. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director, RINPAS, Ranchi forthwith. Let a copy of this order be also supplied to the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant so that he may produce it before the Director, RINPAS, Ranchi. 10. The report of the Medical Superintendent, Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry and Allied Sciences (RINPAS) dated 16.1.2008 was produced on record on 21.1.2008 wherein it was stated that the claimant-appellant aged about 35 years daughter of Shri Bhuneshwar Karmali was brought by her father on 15.1.2008 in RINPAS OPD for her mental status examination and treatment. Upon mental status examination and psychological evaluation the appellant Most. Gudaki Devi was diagnosed as a case of schizophrenia F-20 (undifferentiated type) by Medical Board of three psychiatrists. She was advised to continue the prescribed medicines with regular check up in every month till complete improvement. 11. We further find from the perusal of the judgment/award that the total amount of claim as calculated by the tribunal was by using appropriate multiplier, which does not call for interference in appeal. 12. She was advised to continue the prescribed medicines with regular check up in every month till complete improvement. 11. We further find from the perusal of the judgment/award that the total amount of claim as calculated by the tribunal was by using appropriate multiplier, which does not call for interference in appeal. 12. In the facts and circumstances, this appeal is disposed of with the following observation: No succession certificate is required for the withdrawal of the cheque issued in the name of the claimant/appellant by the respondent Oriental Insurance Company within a period of 30 days of this order which shall carry interest of 6% since the date of award and accordingly the judgment/award passed/prepared in Claim Case No. 148 of 1998 is modified. The father of the claimant-appellant Shri Bhuneshwar Karmali under whose care she is living shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50.000/- in the fixed account of any Nationalized Bank in the name of the claimant and would meet out the medical and other expenses of the claimant for 5 years from the interest of said deposits. He would produce the claimant before the RINPAS in every month for regular check up and the balance amount being the interest accrued on the claim amount shall be spent on the welfare and to meet out the expenses of other requirements in the day to day's life of the claimant. 13. With this observation, this appeal is disposed of. M.Y. Eqbal, J. 14. I agree.