JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The petitioner is directed to delete State Government as party, since the presence of the State Government is not at all required for the adjudication of the matter. 2. Rule. Mr. Shelat learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule for the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which is the main contesting party. The matter is finally heard. 3. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 651 of 2003 before the tribunal. The tribunal after hearing both the sides, passed judgement and award dated 2.2.2007. It was common judgement and award in M.A.C.P. Nos. 651 of 2003 to M.A.C.P. No. 657 of 2003. However, the direction was given by the tribunal that 70 percent of the amount shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit Receipts, and 30 percent of the amount shall be paid to each of the petitioner by A/c payee cheque. 4. It appears that thereafter, so far as the claim petition No. 651 of 2003, which is subject matter of the present petition is concerned, the respondent insurance company deposited the amount of Rs. 1,42,398/- as per the award. Out of which the amount of Rs. 3,500/- is deducted towards Court fees. Whereas, remaining amount of Rs. 1,38,898/- has been invested by the tribunal, and there is no actual disbursement. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring present petition for the relief inter alia to direct for disbursement of the amount, as per the judgement and award dated 2.2.2007 passed by the tribunal. 5. It appears that it is an admitted position that the tribunal passed award for the amount of Rs. 1,11,800/- with the interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of application till realisation, so far as the M.A.C.P. No. 651 of 2003 is concerned. 5. It appears that it is an admitted position that the tribunal passed award for the amount of Rs. 1,11,800/- with the interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of application till realisation, so far as the M.A.C.P. No. 651 of 2003 is concerned. It is also an admitted position that the tribunal did observe in the award as under: "After deduction of N.F.L. amount and Court fees, 70 percent of the remaining amount shall be deposited in the name of each petitioner in any Nationalised Bank for a period of 6 years with a direction to the bank not to grant any loan or advance on the said FDR without prior permission of this Tribunal and the remaining 30 percent amount shall be paid to each petitioner by A/c. payee cheque. However, the petitioners shall be at the liberty to withdraw the periodical interest on the said FDR as per the rules of the Bank" 6. Under these circumstances, it was required for the tribunal to invest only 70 percent of the amount, and 30 percent of the amount was to be paid to the petitioner by A/c payee cheque. 7. It also appears that the tribunal in the very award has given liberty to the insurer to recover the amount from the owner, but further observed as under: "Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants" 8. Therefore, at the most the tribunal could insist for compliance of the aforesaid aspect only. Nothing has been done in the present case, and the tribunal has invested total amount minus amount of Court fees. Therefore, such an approach on the part of the tribunal cannot be sustained, and deserves to be quashed and set aside with the appropriate direction. 9. In view of the above, the action on the part of the tribunal for investment of the total amount of Rs. 1,38,898/- is quashed and set aside with the direction that the tribunal shall invest 70 percent of the proportionate amount, as per the award and shall pay 30 percent of the proportionate amount to the petitioner by A/c payee cheque. 1,38,898/- is quashed and set aside with the direction that the tribunal shall invest 70 percent of the proportionate amount, as per the award and shall pay 30 percent of the proportionate amount to the petitioner by A/c payee cheque. However, tribunal shall issue the notice to the owner of the vehicle and shall ensure furnishing of the security by the owner before release of the amount to the petitioner. 10. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.