JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.06.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar (hereinafter "the Tribunal") whereby her application for premature disbursement of the amount lying in two FDRs aggregating to Rs. 3,00,000/- has been dismissed. 2. Heard. Perused the impugned order. 3. The only ground advanced by the petitioner in the application for premature disbursement of FDR amount was that she was living in a house which is not in a good condition and therefore she was in dire need of money for construction/repair of the house. 4. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas [ AIR 1994 SC 1631 ] has held in para 17 as under : "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 Corporation v. Union of India [ (1991)4 SCC 584 ] in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan v. United India Insurance Co. Lrd. [1982(1) 23 Guj. LR 756] 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 invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority. Lrd. [1982(1) 23 Guj. LR 756] 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 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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may however be allowed to be withdrawn; (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchase 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 (i) above, subject to the relaxation set out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal background an 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 FDR can be liquidated" These guidelines should be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases." 5. It cannot be disputed that the purpose of safeguarding the compensation amount paid under an award is to ensure proper investment and prevent the award amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries either for reason of ignorance, illiteracy, exploitation or short sightness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Susamma Thomas (Supra) has kept the door open to the claimants to seek variation of the arrangements made in an award to serve the long terms financial stability of the claimants only in case of emergencies. 6. To my mind premature encashment of a FDR for construction/repair of a house cannot fall within the meaning of "emergency" as referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Susamma Thomas (Supra). What the repairs required of a house are and how essential they are has not been stated nor any estimate of such repairs submitted. The reason advanced for premature encashment is thus not to the satisfaction of the Court. The whole purpose of keeping the amount in fixed deposits is to safeguard the future of the claimants to the extent it was possible. Financial discipline is imperative. Construction/repair of a house without necessary particulars cannot be equated with "an emergency" to warrant premature encashment of FDR. 7. There is nothing perverse in the impugned order dated 22.06.2015 passed by the Tribunal attracting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.The petition is without force. Dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******