ORDER : Harsha Devani, J. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd March, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Amreli in Claim Miscellaneous Application No.80/2015 whereby the petitioner's application for withdrawal of the amount deposited by the respondent No.2 - company pursuant to the judgment and award dated 24th June, 2003 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.467/2001 has been rejected. 2. The facts stated briefly are that the petitioner herein filed a claim petition under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs). By a judgment and award dated 24th June, 2003, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by holding that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,34,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respondents. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before this High Court being First Appeal No.174/2004. By a judgment and order dated 19th August, 2013, the first appeal came to be partly allowed and it was held that the petitioner is entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. It appears that the said judgment and order passed by this court has not been carried any further by the respondent – insurance company and has attained finality and pursuant thereto, the respondent No.2 – National Insurance Company has deposited Rs.13,18,288/- with the Claims Tribunal. Out of the said amount, after deducting Rs. 15,950/- towards court fees, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 13,02,338/-. By the impugned order, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has ordered that 90% of the amount of Rs.13,02,338/- be deposited in fixed deposit for a period of seven years and the balance 10% amounting to Rs. 1,30,233/- be paid to the petitioner by way of Account Payee cheque. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Mr. Hemant Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Padma v. R. Venugopal, 2012 (1) G.L.H. 442 , wherein the court has held thus:- "5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Mr. Hemant Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Padma v. R. Venugopal, 2012 (1) G.L.H. 442 , wherein the court has held thus:- "5. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him. The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice." It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal without applying its mind to the fact that the claim petition is of the year 2001 and that fifteen years have passed from the date of filing of the claim petition and the date when the High Court has enhanced the amount, has mechanically directed 90% of the awarded amount to be invested in fixed deposit. It was submitted that having regard to the age of the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioner has got several dependents and is in dire need of funds for further medical treatment, the Tribunal was not justified in directing that 90% of the amount be deposited in fixed deposit for a further period of seven years. It was submitted that the petitioner is an educated person and is in a position to take care of his own interest and as such, the petition is required to be allowed by directing the Tribunal to pay the entire amount to the petitioner by way of Account Payee cheque. 4. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner and has perused the impugned order passed by the Claims Tribunal. On a perusal of the application made by the petitioner, it is apparent that it is not stated in clear terms that the petitioner seeks to withdraw the entire awarded amount. Nonetheless, as rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in directing 90% of the awarded amount to be invested in fixed deposit. Nonetheless, as rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in directing 90% of the awarded amount to be invested in fixed deposit. Considering the fact that the accident had taken place sometime in the year 2001 and the claim has been finally adjudicated in the year 2015, directing deposit of 90% of the awarded amount would more or less amount to directing the entire amount to be deposited in the fixed deposit. Consequently, the petitioner who has been pursuing the matter for so many years is deprived of the benefit of the award in his favour and gets only a limited benefit of the interest fetched on the said amount. Moreover, having regard to the age of the petitioner and the responsibilities which he is required to discharge, and considering the fact that he is an educated person and in a position to take care of his own interest, instead of restoring the matter to the Claims Tribunal, it would be expedient to allow the petition by permitting the petitioner to withdraw the entire awarded amount. 5. As held by the Supreme Court in the above referred decision, even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him. In the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has, in a mechanical manner, directed investment of 90% of the awarded amount in fixed deposit without taking into consideration the above referred factors. Under the circumstances, the impugned order, to the extent the same directs investment of 90% of the awarded amount in fixed deposit for a period of seven years, cannot be sustained. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Under the circumstances, the impugned order, to the extent the same directs investment of 90% of the awarded amount in fixed deposit for a period of seven years, cannot be sustained. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 2nd March, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Amreli below Exhibit-1 in Claim Miscellaneous Application No.80/2015 is hereby set aside to the extent the same directs 90% of the awarded amount to be invested in the fixed deposit for a period of seven years. The petition is hereby allowed by directing the registry of the Claims Tribunal to pay the entire awarded amount to the petitioner by Account Payee cheque after due verification. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted. Petition allowed.