Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.01.2008, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri, whereby the learned Tribunal had been pleased to dismiss the petitioner's application for release of the FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Schedule Bank as directed by the learned Tribunal while determining the compensation in MACT Case No.129/2004. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition and also the impugned order. 3. By order dated 27.09.2006, the learned Tribunal while deciding the MACT Case No.129/2004, filed by the petitioner-claimant, has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition for the injuries sustained by the petitioner-claimant in an vehicular accident under the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunal noted that a sum of Rs.1,43,615/- had already been made over to the petitioner-claimant in cash and therefore, directed that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- be kept in FDR with the Scheduled Bank for a period of 18 years on which the petitioner was to be entitled to interest each month. 4. The petitioner-claimant moved an application before the learned Tribunal stating that he was not keeping well and was under medical treatment on which considerable sum of Rs.3,00,000/- being expended. Therefore, it was prayed that the Tribunal may allow the petitioner to encash the FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- in his name with the Scheduled Bank in terms of directions of the Tribunal in its order dated 27.09.2006. 5. On consideration of the matter, the Tribunal noted that the application for encashment of the FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- was vague and the petitioner had been allowed to avail cash compensation for a sum of Rs.1,43,615/- earlier. The Tribunal also found that the application for encashment of the FDR was not supported by any material particulars or evidence in support thereof. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for encashment of the FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Scheduled Bank in the name of the petitioner. 6. Having considered the facts on record and also the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the impugned order dated 14.01.2008 was passed almost four years ago. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for encashment of the FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Scheduled Bank in the name of the petitioner. 6. Having considered the facts on record and also the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the impugned order dated 14.01.2008 was passed almost four years ago. In these circumstances, instead of addressing the said order dated 14.01.2008 on merits, it would be proper that the petitioner be allowed to move a fresh application before the Tribunal for encashment of the FDR standing in his name with reference to MACT Case No.129/2004 decided on 27.09.2006. 7. The petitioner should make a detailed application for encashment/release of the said FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- with supporting material and the Tribunal should thereupon consider the matter afresh with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors. ( (1994) 2 SCC 176 = RLW 1995(2) SC 19). In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : 23. In a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Corpn. vs. Union of India in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. this Court offered the following guidelines: "(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. Ltd. this Court offered the following guidelines: "(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be 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 (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 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 (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; (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." These guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases. 8. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of the petitioner moves a fresh application for release/encashment of FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- as aforesaid, the Tribunal shall decided the same by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such application. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.