:ORDER: The petitioner is claimant in O.P.No.272 of 2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), West Godavari District, Eluru, (hereafter, MACT). He filed the said O.P claiming compensation for the injuries he sustained in a motor accident on 13.10.2006 involving Maruthi Car. He suffered serious injuries. On 14.10.2006 his right leg was amputed and he sustained 60% disability. He also alleged that from the date of the accident till 06.11.2006 he was hospitalized and again from 01.12.2006 to 30.04.2007 he was under treatment in Purna Nursing Home, Nidadavole, as an out patient. 2. MACT after regular enquiry passed award on 06.09.2007. An amount of Rs.6,82,111/- was awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The third respondent (insurer) deposited an amount of Rs.7,27,525/- on 26.12.2007. The petitioner filed an application being I.A.No.1168 of 2008 seeking permission of MACT to withdraw an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- out of the total compensation awarded. In justification of the same, he stated in the affidavit accompanying the said application that he borrowed amounts for treatment including surgery, that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is required for clearing borrowed debts and for artificial leg, that he requires an artificial limb to his leg, that he has to undergo another operation involving cost of Rs.50,000/-, and that as he cannot carry on his Government job as Laskar in Irrigation Department, he desires to commence kirana business in a small way. Along with the application he also produced price quotation of M/s.Chaitanya Artificial Limb Centre, Palakol, for an amount of Rs.55,000/- for the fitment of Knee 'Prosthetis of Ottobock', Germany. Learned MACT, however, passed orders on 23.04.2008 for payment of Rs.50,000/- only. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Besides reiterating the case of the petitioner noticed hereinabove, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India1, which were followed and reiterated in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v Susamma Thomas. He also placed reliance on Chenna Madavuni Prathap Raju v Rayala Rama Rao Chowdhary. He also placed reliance on Chenna Madavuni Prathap Raju v Rayala Rama Rao Chowdhary. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for third respondent - Insurance Company, submits that though for further medical treatment amounts can be released in favour of the claimant or injured person, the Court must ensure that the alleged post operative treatment is not a ruse for withdrawing the amount. He opposes release of any amount for business on the ground that the petitioner is already working as Laskar, and therefore, no further amounts can be released. 4. So as to ensure that the amount of compensation goes to the claimant or the injured person and that such amounts are not misused or misappropriated by interlopers, the apex Court laid down law in the matter of disbursement of the amount deposited in MACT by the insurer or other tort-feasor. A Division Bench of this Court in G.Lakshmamma v Gayaranga Dey4 laid down the guidelines with regard to dealing of the compensation amount. In sum and substance, these indicate that whenever the compensation is deposited in the Court, an amount of only Rs.25,000/- must be directed to be credited to the account of a claimant in the Bank straightaway and the balance amount shall be kept in fixed deposit. The interest amount accrued on the fixed deposit alone must be credited to the claimant's account every quarter or half year, as permissible and as and when they accrue. The claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the amounts deposited to their account. The amount in fixed deposit, either in part or whole, should be released to the claimants, subject to the satisfaction of Tribunal. Again such amount should be released to meet unavoidable expenditure, such as medical expenses, marriage expenses and to that limited extent O.P shall be deemed to be pending. 5. In Susamma Thomas (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated eight guidelines laid down in Union Carbide Corporation (supra). Insofar as this case is concerned, guidelines (ii), (iv) and (vi) are relevant and read as under. 5. In Susamma Thomas (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated eight guidelines laid down in Union Carbide Corporation (supra). Insofar as this case is concerned, guidelines (ii), (iv) and (vi) are relevant and read as under. (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; (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; (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; (emphasis supplied) 6. In view of guidelines in Susamma Thomas (supra) and also G.Lakshmamma (supra) and having regard to the fact that of late there are number of cases coming before MACTs, (of injured who got favourable awards for compensation) for release of amounts for post operative treatment, other medical expenses and for carrying on avocation to earn living, this Court is of considered opinion that the following guidelines must be kept in view by MACT while considering such applications, for premature release of frozen amounts. (i) In cases of amputation, the requirement of fixing an artificial limb subsequently should be a valid reason for releasing amounts for buying/fixing artificial limbs, subject to production of proof like quotation from vendors and Doctor's Certificate. (i) In cases of amputation, the requirement of fixing an artificial limb subsequently should be a valid reason for releasing amounts for buying/fixing artificial limbs, subject to production of proof like quotation from vendors and Doctor's Certificate. MACT in its discretion may either allow the entire amount required or call upon the claimants to produce further proof; (ii) In cases of injury (as observed in Nagappa v Gurudayal Singh5), MACT must bear in mind possibility of the injured requiring further corrective or curative surgery/surgeries and accordingly release the amount after obtaining expert opinion to ensure that money withdrawn is not diverted for other unjustified purposes. (iii) Ordinarily, when there are serious injuries resulting in above 50% disability and also amputation of limbs especially legs, the injured is likely to loose his job. If he is young and has a family, necessarily he has to explore other possibilities of earning a livelihood by self-employment like starting a business. If a claimant comes forward seeking money for starting a kirana business, subject to satisfying itself, MACT may consider the possibility of releasing amounts. In such an event, the MACT should be satisfied that the amount released would be used only for the business for which it is sought, and in case of misuse, may stop further payments from deposit, and iv) If it is proved before MACT that during the pendency the claimant(s)/injured incurred expenditure for medical treatment and for that purpose borrowed amounts, to enable the injured to discharge the debts, amounts may be released after satisfying about such debts. 7. Reverting back to the facts of the case, the petitioner had a long convalescence period after surgery. But, there is nothing on record as to whether he received any financial help from the Department of Irrigation where he was working as Laskar. In most likely, he must have taken private loans or taken money from his General Provident Fund account etc. All these details are not before this Court. Insofar as the cost of fixing artificial leg, a quotation is placed and to that extent an amount of Rs.50,000/- is released. It is also the case of the petitioner that he requires another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for starting kirana business. In the opinion of this Court this is justified. All these details are not before this Court. Insofar as the cost of fixing artificial leg, a quotation is placed and to that extent an amount of Rs.50,000/- is released. It is also the case of the petitioner that he requires another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for starting kirana business. In the opinion of this Court this is justified. It is no doubt true that as on the date of accident he was working as a Laskar, which is a job requiring the incumbent to move from place to place and attend to the sluices on irrigation canals. It would not be possible for the petitioner with an amputed leg to do the job, especially, when he is already 52 years of age. Therefore, the release of Rs.1,00,000/- would be justified. He also claimed another amount of Rs.50,000/- for surgery to right hand. MACT may also consider this aspect having regard to the medical certificate issued by M/s.L.V.Prasad Hospitals, Tadepalligudem. However, as the petitioner has not placed any material before this Court with regard to borrowed amounts, so as to give him opportunity to satisfy MACT, matter should be sent back to MACT for enquiry into this. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of, and the matter is remitted to MACT - cum - Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry, and dispose of the matter keeping in view the observations and guidelines hereinabove. It shall be open to the petitioner to produce necessary evidence insofar as the amounts borrowed from others. There shall be no order as to costs.