JUDGMENT : Biswajit Mohanty, J. - In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.8.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Berhampur, Ganjam under Annexure-1 refusing premature withdrawal of the fixed deposits made on behalf of the petitioners for defraying marriage expenses of petitioner no.2 and permitting the petitioners to withdraw their compensation amounts as kept in fixed deposit. 2. Heard B.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The facts relating to filing of the writ application as stated by the petitioners are as follows:- Petitioner no.1 is the widow of one Diga @ Digambar Rout. Petitioner nos.2,3, and 4 are children of Petitioner no.1 and late Diga @ Digambar Rout. Late Diga @ Digambar Rout died in a motor vehicle accident leaving the petitioner nos.2,3 and 4 in a helpless condition. After untimely death of the sole bread earner of the family, the petitioners have filed M.A.C. No.74 of 2012 in the court of 1st M.A.C.T., Berhampur claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. After filing of the claim case, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written statement. Ultimately, on 26.7.2013 the claim case was disposed of in terms of compromise by awarding an amount of Rs. 3,70,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs. 1,40,000/- was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit account in the name of Petitioner no.1 and Rs. 40,000/- each was directed to be kept in three separate fixed deposit accounts in the names of Petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 in any Nationalized Bank for a period of seven years. It was also indicated that there should be no premature withdrawal of amount deposited in the above manner without prior permission of the Tribunal. The balance amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was directed to be paid to Petitioner no.1. As per the above direction, fixed deposit amounts have been opened for seven years in the Corporation Bank, Berhampur. On 11.7.2014, the marriage of petitioner no.2 was solemnized. Since petitioner no.1 performed the marriage ceremony of petitioner no.2 by borrowing money from her relatives and well wishers, therefore, on 14.7.2014 an application under Annexure-2 was filed before the learned Tribunal for release of the fixed deposits of petitioners, so that the amount could be utilised for clearing the loans so incurred. Since petitioner no.1 performed the marriage ceremony of petitioner no.2 by borrowing money from her relatives and well wishers, therefore, on 14.7.2014 an application under Annexure-2 was filed before the learned Tribunal for release of the fixed deposits of petitioners, so that the amount could be utilised for clearing the loans so incurred. However, learned Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioners on 12.8.2014 on the ground that since such fixed deposits have been made for future sustenance of the petitioners, this object would be frustrated if premature withdrawal would be allowed. Challenging the same, the present writ application has been filed by the petitioners. Since no relief has been claimed against opposite party nos.1 and 2, this Court did not choose to issue notice to the said opposite parties. 4. Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 12.8.2004 rejecting the application of the petitioners for premature release of the fixed deposit amount of the petitioners is bad in law and the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and materials in their proper perspective and without application of judicial mind. Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the compensation amount was awarded for the benefit of the family and since the petitioners have no other viable source of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have released the entire amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- kept in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioners in order to clear the loan incurred for performing marriage of petitioner no.2. In any case, he submitted that under the facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal has gone wrong in not releasing any amount, which has resulted in grave injustice in this case. 5. In this context, let us examine the law on point. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susama Thomas and others, ( AIR 1994 S.C. 1631 ) it has been made clear that in case of compensation for death, it is appropriate that the learned Tribunal should keep in mind the principles enunciated in the case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, ( AIR 1992 S.C. 248 ) in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and exploitation. In that case, Hon'ble Supreme 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 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 rouge to withdraw money; (iii) In the case of semi-illiterate 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". 6. For the purpose of this case, guidelines under (i),(v) and (viii) are relevant. A conjoint reading of these three guidelines make it clear that in case of minors the amount of compensation awarded is to be invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the minors attain the majority. However, the expenses incurred by the guardian for such minor be allowed to be withdrawn. Further, the learned Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of any emergency. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned Tribunal has committed grave illegality in totally rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for release of the fixed deposit amounts. It appears that the Tribunal has acted mechanically without application of judicial mind in passing the impugned order. The Tribunal has shut it's eyes to realities of life relating to the expenses required for performing a daughter's marriage. The Tribunal thought that premature release of the amount would have jeopardised the future sustenance of the petitioners. The guidelines (i) and (viii) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as indicated earlier clearly permit withdrawal in case of necessity and for defraying the expenses incurred for minor. Therefore, under the circumstances, the Tribunal should have considered release of the entire amount deposited against the name of Petitioner no.2, as the Petitioner no.1 has incurred loan in her marriage. The guidelines (i) and (viii) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as indicated earlier clearly permit withdrawal in case of necessity and for defraying the expenses incurred for minor. Therefore, under the circumstances, the Tribunal should have considered release of the entire amount deposited against the name of Petitioner no.2, as the Petitioner no.1 has incurred loan in her marriage. Similarly, the Tribunal should have considered releasing a part of the awarded amount which remains in the fixed deposit account of Petitioner no.1 without jeoparadising her future sustenance, as it remains undisputed that Petitioner no.1 has no other viable source of income, without touching the fixed deposit accounts of Petitioner nos.3 and 4. 8. In such background, this Court quashes the impugned order dated 12.8.2014 by which the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners for premature withdrawal and remands the matter to the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Berhampur to hear the matter afresh and direct release of appropriate amount keeping in mind the observations made above. The Tribunal shall complete the entire exercise within a period of two months from today. Accordingly, the writ application is partly allowed. No costs. Final Result : Allowed