JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. This appeal preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against award dated 01.06.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Almora, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2008 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant/appellant which is directed to be paid by respondent No.3 (National Insurance Company) with whom the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2007 at about 10.30 am near Tourist Rest Centre, Khairna, claimant/appellant Bishan Singh Kanwal, was waiting for a vehicle, when suddenly a vehicle bearing Registration No. UAO4B-9585, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver (respondent No.2), dashed at him. Claimant/appellant suffered grievous injuries on his legs. He was immediately taken to nearest Primary Health Center, from where, he was referred to Krishna Nursing Home, Haldwani, and from there he had to go Bareilly, for further medical treatment. Claimant (injured) claimed Rs. 14,65,158.73 as amount of compensation, from the respondent No.1 Jagat Singh Mehta (owner of the vehicle), respondent No.2 (driver) and respondent No.3 (National Insurance Company Ltd., with whom the vehicle was insured at that time of the accident). 4. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed their written statements, and pleaded that it was the claimant who rushed towards the vehicle and got dashed. It was also pleaded that Rs. 20,000/- were paid by the respondent No.1 to the claimant for immediate help at the time of the accident. It is further pleaded that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company at the time of the accident. 5. The respondent No.3 National Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Haldwani, filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the claimant was in a drunken state and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the policy, as such, the answering respondent was not responsible for the loss caused to the claimant. 6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:- (i) Whether on 24.09.2007 at about 10.30 am near Khairna, vehicle bearing Registration No. UAO4B- 9585 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and caused injury on person of claimant Bishan Singh Kanwal, if so its effect ? 6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:- (i) Whether on 24.09.2007 at about 10.30 am near Khairna, vehicle bearing Registration No. UAO4B- 9585 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and caused injury on person of claimant Bishan Singh Kanwal, if so its effect ? (ii) Whether the accident occurred due to the fault on the part of claimant Bishan Singh Kanwal as pleaded in Para -7 of the written statement filed by owner of the vehicle, if so its effect? (iii) To what amount of compensation, and from whom, the claimant is entitled ? (iv) Whether at the date, time and place of the accident, the claimant was in a drunken state as pleaded by respondent No.3, if so its effect? (v) Whether claimant was paid Rs. 20,000/- as compensation by respondent No.1 as pleaded by the respondent, if so its effect ? 7. After recording the evidence of the parties, and hearing them, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant but directed that amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in the Fixed Deposit till the minor daughter of the claimant gets major. Only Rs. 50,000/- were directed to be released in favour of the claimant. 8. The first argument advance on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in law in directing that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- be deposited in the Fixed Deposit till the daughter of the claimant gets age of majority. It is pointed out that it is an injury case and claimant’s daughter was not the claimant. I have perused the evidence on record and found that the Tribunal has made unnecessary direction to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- in Fixed Deposit till the claimant’s daughter gets age of majority. It is not a death case in which the claimant’s minor daughter has claimed the compensation. Claimant was an injured person. He had taken the plea that he had spent more than Rs. 3,00,000/- on medical treatment of his injury, as both of his legs got fractured and he had to undergo surgery. 9. In the above circumstances, this court finds that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires modification so that the injured/claimant can be provided the necessary financial aid without further delay. 10. 3,00,000/- on medical treatment of his injury, as both of his legs got fractured and he had to undergo surgery. 9. In the above circumstances, this court finds that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires modification so that the injured/claimant can be provided the necessary financial aid without further delay. 10. As far as, the enhancement of amount of compensation is concerned, though it is submitted on behalf of the claimant that the claimant has already spent more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal as his medical expenditure, but on the basis of evidence on record, it cannot be said that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper. 11. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of with the direction that the entire amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Almora, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2008 shall be released with interest to the claimant without further delay. The direction to keep amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in the Fixed Deposit/Terms Deposit till the minor daughter of claimant gets age of majority, stands set aside.