V.K. Shukla, J.;- In the present case, petitioner had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 188 of 1997 (Bhagwan Gupta Vs. Triloki Nath Tiwari and others) before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gorakhpur. Petitioner submits that said claim petition in question was allowed on 30.05.2002 and award of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith 9% interest from filing of claim petition was passed. Petitioner submits that pursuant to the said award in question amount of Rs. 19,262/- has been paid by way of account payee cheque and the rest of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be invested in fixed deposit for a period of five years. Petitioner submits that accordingly said exercise was undertaken and balance amount in question i.e. sum of Rs. 25,000/- invested in fixed deposit. Petitioner states that the period for which said amount has been invested starting with effect from 03.10.2002 to 03.10.2007 has already expired then thereafter petitioner came up with the request that amount in question be released in his favour. Petitioner stated that in stead of proceeding to release the said amount in question, again said amount in question has been directed to be reinvested. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed. 2. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas AIR. 1994 SC 1631 has given guidelines to be kept in mind at the point of time of passing award for safeguarding the interest of claimant. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted herein below: (i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted herein below: (i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposits 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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however be allowed to be withdrawn; (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (1) above, but if lump sum payment is required for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 rouge to withdraw money; (iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding and 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 (1) 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; (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 on 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. 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." 3. Hon'ble Apex Court again in the Lilaben Udesing Gohel, Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1605 has again reiterated same principle by mentioning that the Court/Tribunal should realise their duty towards the victims of the accident so that a large part of the compensation amount is not lost to them. The very purpose of laying down the guidelines was to ensure the safety of the amount so that the claimants do not become victims of unscrupulous persons and unethical agreements or arrangements. Relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is being extracted below: "22. The guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court take care of the provisions of Section 168 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while, as indicated hereinabove, attention of the Full Bench has not been drawn to the provisions of Section 168 (3) of the Act, which requires a person liable to make payment of the amount of compensation to deposit the amount of compensation with the Tribunal within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award. 23. In the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasis is to protect the interests of minor claimants and the interest of illiterate and semi-literate, as well as poor claimants. The guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also apply to literate and other claimants. But in such cases discretion is left with the Tribunal, indicating the circumstances and the manner in which the discretion may be exercised. While in the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench, it is difficult to read that any such discretion is left with the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons there is conflict between the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Carbide Corporation (supra) and again in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road transport Corporation (supra). Moreover, this conflict is irreconcilable inasmuch as it would be impossible to implement both the guidelines simultaneously." (See Jayantilal Ambalal Parma v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (1994) 35 (2) Gujarat Law Reporter 1308). 14. Moreover, this conflict is irreconcilable inasmuch as it would be impossible to implement both the guidelines simultaneously." (See Jayantilal Ambalal Parma v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (1994) 35 (2) Gujarat Law Reporter 1308). 14. The five-Judge Bench concluded saying that the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as indicated above have to be followed by all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. Thus, the position in law as it stood before the decision rendered by the three-Judge Bench of the High Court stands restored. 15. It may also be mentioned that before us both the General Insurance Corporation and the Life Insurance Corporation expressed their inability to work out and operate the annuity scheme proposed by the three-Judge Bench of the High Court and further expressed their inability to grant the proposed interest rate as it may conflict with Reserve Bank of India directives that may ensue from time to time. They too, therefore, expressed their inability to operate the scheme. Counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation clarified that when its counsel gave the consent before the three-Judge Bench, it did not visualise the various operational difficulties likely to arise in the implementation of the scheme proposed by the three-Judge Bench of the High Court. Thus, both the General Insurance Corporation and the Life Insurance Corporation feel that the said scheme is unworkable and fraught with several insurmountable difficulties. We too are of the view that the scheme may throw up many operational difficulties. However, now that the larger bench of the High Court has restored the original position, nothing more is required to be done. If any loopholes appear in the implementation of the guidelines laid down in Muljibhai's case (1982 (23) 1 Guj LR 756), they can always be plugged consistently with the guidelines. 16. Before we pare we must observe that even though the guidelines laid down in Muljibhai's case (1982 (23) 1 Guj LR 756) have been approved and applied by this Court in the aforementioned two cases, many Motor Accidents Claims tribunals and even some of the High Courts in other parts of the country do not follow them. We are also told that in claims that are settled in or outside the Court or Tribunal, including Lok-Adalats or Lok Nyayalayas, these guidelines are overlooked. We are also told that in claims that are settled in or outside the Court or Tribunal, including Lok-Adalats or Lok Nyayalayas, these guidelines are overlooked. We would like to make it absolutely clear that in all cases in which compensation is awarded for injury caused in a motor accident, whether by way of adjudication or agreement between the parties, the Court/Tribunal must apply these guidelines. We must add one further guideline to the effect that when the amount is invested in a fixed deposit, the bank should invariably be directed to affix a note on the Fixed Deposit Receipt that no loan or advance should be granted on the strength of the said FDR without the express permission of the Court/Tribunal which ordered the deposit. This will eliminate the practise of taking loans which may be upto 80% of the amount invested and thereby defeating the very purpose of the order. We do hope that the Courts/Tribunals in the country will not succumb to the temptation of permitting huge withdrawals in the hope of disposing of the claims. We are sure that the Courts/Tribunals will realise their duty towards the victims of the accident so that a large part of the compensation amount is not lost to them. The very purpose of laying down the guidelines was to ensure the safety of the amount so that the claimants do not become victims of unscrupulous persons and unethical agreements or arrangements. We do hope our anxiety to protect the claimants from exploitation by such elements will be equally shared by the Courts/Tribunals. 17. There is no need for any further discussion in the matter. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 716/93 filed by the Motor Vahan Durghatana Sangathan, Nadiad and others has become infructuous and is, therefore, so disposed of. The appeals arising out of special leave petitions are allowed accordingly. Further orders regarding disbursement, etc. to be obtained from the concerned Tribunals/High Courts. No costs." 4. Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 674 , has held as follows: "In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 674 , has held as follows: "In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, Court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record. In the present case, it has been pointed out that for replacing the artificial leg every two to three years, appellant would be required to have some sort of operation and also change the artificial leg. At that time, the estimated expenses for this were Rs. 18000/- and the High Court has awarded the said amount. For change of artificial leg every two or three years no compensation is awarded. Considering this aspect, if Rs. One lac is awarded as an additional compensation, appellant would be in a position to meet the said expenses from the interest of the said amount. Equally it is true that the said amount is required to be properly invested on long-term basis so that recurring medical expenses could be met." 5. In the present case on the parameter has been as has been settled down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this much is clear that in order to protect the interest of petitioner, in the award itself direction for investment of rest of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of five years arrangement was made and nothing beyond the same. Once in the original award direction has been given to invest the amount in question for a period of five years and thereafter further direction for reinvesting the amount was not there, then further extension of time is not permissible. 6. In the present case after expiry of period of five years from the date of investment in question said amount in question was liable to be released as such in this background order which has been passed for reinvestment for further period till 14.02.2013 cannot be approved of, as in case such action is approved, same will amount to modification of terms and condition of original award itself. 7. Consequently in the facts of the case order dated 06.04.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Consequently in the facts of the case order dated 06.04.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. Concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed to see and ensure that balance amount in question is ensured to petitioner by way of account payee cheque in favour of the petitioner. 8. With the above direction present writ petition is allowed and disposed of.