JUDGMENT : Yashwant Varma, J. 1. Affidavits of service have been filed by the petitioners which are taken on record. From the averments made therein it is evident that the Insurance Company stands duly served. 2. Both these petitions impugn orders passed by the Lok Adalat proceeding to direct the securitization and placement in deposit of substantial sums that had come to be settled and agreed to be paid by the Insurance Company in respect of a claim that came to be settled inter prates. 3. In Writ C No. 33606 of 2019, out of the total sum agreed between the parties, of Rs. 4,50,000 the Lok Adalat has proceeded to direct that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- be placed in a fixed deposit of a Nationalised Bank for a period of five years and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- be released. Insofar as the claimant No. 2 is concerned, it has provided that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded shall be placed in a fixed deposit of a Nationalised Bank for a period of five years. The petitioner No. 1 is the father of the deceased. The petitioner No 2 is the son who, though a minor at the time when the incident occurred, had admittedly attained majority and was a signatory and a party to the compromise that was placed on the record of the Lok Adalat. 4. In Writ C No. 33176 of 2019, the petitioner No. 1 is the mother while the petitioner No. 2 is the father of the deceased. Both the petitioners are the parents of Abhishek Dixit, the deceased son. In this case also the Lok Adalat has made arrangements on similar lines and directed placement of a major part of the sum which was agreed to inter prates to be placed in a fixed deposit of a Nationalised Bank. 5. Both the petitioners are the parents of Abhishek Dixit, the deceased son. In this case also the Lok Adalat has made arrangements on similar lines and directed placement of a major part of the sum which was agreed to inter prates to be placed in a fixed deposit of a Nationalised Bank. 5. The procedure which the Tribunal is obliged to follow in order to secure the interest of a person under a legal disability or where some of the claimants are minors has been provided for in Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1998 which reads thus:- “220-B - Securing the interest of Claimants:- (1) Where any lump-sum amount of compensation, deposited with the Claims Tribunal is payable to a woman or a person under legal disability, such sum may be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with for the benefit of the women or such person during his disability in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct to be paid to any dependent of the injured or heirs of the deceased or to any other person whom the Claims Tribunal thinks best fitted to provide for the welfare of the injured or the heir of the deceased. (2) Where an application made to the Claims Tribunal in this behalf otherwise, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that on account of neglect of the children on the part of the parents, or on account of the variation of the circumstances of any dependent, or for any other sufficient cause, an order of the Claims Tribunal as to the distribution of any sum paid as compensation or as to the manner in which any sum payable to any such dependent is to be invested applied or otherwise dealt with, ought to be varied, the Claims Tribunal may make such further orders for the variation of the former order as it thinks just in the circumstances of the case. (3) The Claims Tribunal shall, in the case of minor, order that amount of compensation awarded to such minor be invested in the fixed deposits till such minor attains majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or the next friend may be allowed to be withdrawn by such guardian or the next fiend from such deposits before it is deposited. (3) The Claims Tribunal shall, in the case of minor, order that amount of compensation awarded to such minor be invested in the fixed deposits till such minor attains majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian or the next friend may be allowed to be withdrawn by such guardian or the next fiend from such deposits before it is deposited. Provided that the interest payable on such deposits may be allowed to be utilized for education, maintenance and development of the minor with the permission of the Claims Tribunal. (4) The Claims Tribunal shall, in the case of illiterate claimants, order that the amount of compensation awarded be invested in fixed deposits for a minimum period of three years, but if any amount is required for effecting purchase of any movable or immovable property for improving the income of the claimant, the Claims Tribunal may consider such a request after being satisfied that the amount would be actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. (5) The Claims Tribunal shall, in the case of semi-literate person resort to the procedure for the deposit of award amounts set out in sub-rule (4) unless it is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for the expansion of any existing business or for the purchase of some property as specified and mentioned, in sub-rule (4) in which case the Claims Tribunal shall ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is prayed for and paid. (6) The Claims Tribunal may in the case of literate persons also resort to the procedure for deposit of awarded amount specified in sub-rules (4) and (5) if having regard to the age, fiscal background and state of society to which the claimant belongs and such other consideration, the Claims Tribunal in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, thinks it necessary to order. (7) The Claims Tribunal, may in personal injury cases, if further treatment is necessary, on being satisfied which shall be recorded in writing, permit the withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for the expenses of such treatment. (7) The Claims Tribunal, may in personal injury cases, if further treatment is necessary, on being satisfied which shall be recorded in writing, permit the withdrawal of such amount as is necessary for the expenses of such treatment. (8) The Claims Tribunal may, in the matter of investment of money, have regard to maximum return by ways of periodical income to the claimant, deposit with public sector undertaking of the State or Central Government which offers higher rate of interest. (9) The Claims Tribunal shall, in investing money, direct that the interest on the deposits be paid directly to the claimants or the guardian of the minor claimants by the institution holding the deposits under intimation to the Claims Tribunal.” 6. The Supreme Court had in the matter of General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 framed the following guidelines which were to guide Tribunals in the matter of securing the interests of parties:- “(i) The claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order amount of compensation awarded to the minor invested in long term fixed deposited 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 in (i) above unless it is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part of the amount is required for expending any 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 realization 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 so 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 an 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.” 7. Those guidelines were noticed again in a subsequent decision rendered by two learned Judges of the Supreme Court in A.V. Padma and Others vs. R. Venugopal and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 378 where the following observations came to be made:- “4. In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation." Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lump sum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lump sum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. 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. 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 semi-literate 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 and other 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 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.” 8. Despite the lucid explanation in Padma in respect of the underlying intent of the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court, the Lok Adalat appears to continue to harbor the impression that the amounts which are decided and are liable to be paid upon claims being compromised or settled must necessarily and in all situations be securitized. That clearly is neither the intent of Rule 220-B nor does that provision mandate or command such recourse. 9. As this Court reads the orders impugned in these two writ petitions, it is manifest that the provisions made in Rule 220-B have neither been alluded to nor considered. The course adopted by the Lok Adalat evidences a total lack of consideration upon the true intent and purpose underlying the statutory provision as well as the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas and the exposition of the law in Padma. 10. The Lok Adalat also does not ascribe a single reason in support of the directions as framed. At least the orders passed do not establish the conferment of any consideration as to why the amounts as settled by way of compromise were not liable to be released in favour of the claimants. It becomes pertinent to note that the rigidity of the attitude which has been adopted by the Lok Adalat and as is evident from the orders passed in these two writ petitions mirrors what fell for adverse comment in Padma. The Lok Adalat therefore would be well advised to bear the principles enunciated both in Susamma Thomas and Padma in mind before passing orders for securitization of the amounts that are settled. The Lok Adalat therefore would be well advised to bear the principles enunciated both in Susamma Thomas and Padma in mind before passing orders for securitization of the amounts that are settled. In any case, making of such arrangements must adhere to the provisions which are made in Rule 220-B and which has been referred to hereinabove. Since the orders impugned fail to abide by the directions issued and the law as declared by the Supreme Court, the Court finds itself unable to sustain the impugned orders. 11. Before parting the Court deems it apposite to place the following advisory note for the consideration of Lok Adalats in general on record. On being asked by the Court to place the compromise terms on record, it was submitted that the same has not been made available to parties. It was stated by learned counsels that although compromise terms are placed on the record and bear the signatures of all respective parties, copies thereof have not been provided to the claimants. It was submitted that Lok Adalats in general are adopting this procedure and that copies of the compromise/settlement are not provided. The Court finds no justification or logic behind the procedure so adopted. If the compromise terms are part of the record, there can be no justifiable reason or cause for copies thereof not being provided to parties. This issue would assume added significance in situations where orders of the Lok Adalat are assailed before Courts or other judicial fora and the Courts or Tribunals are required to ascertain as to which of the parties had in fact agreed to the compromise terms. Consequently the Secretary of the Legal Services Authorities of the State is directed to instruct all Lok Adalats to ensure that copies of the settlement terms are provided to parties on an application in that respect being made. The Registrar General is requested to place a copy of this order before the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority for further compliance. 12. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 14 September 2019 and 9 October 2019 passed in Writ C Nos. 33606 of 2019 and 33176 of 2019 respectively insofar as they direct for placement of the amounts in a fixed deposit of a Nationalised Bank are quashed. 12. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 14 September 2019 and 9 October 2019 passed in Writ C Nos. 33606 of 2019 and 33176 of 2019 respectively insofar as they direct for placement of the amounts in a fixed deposit of a Nationalised Bank are quashed. The matter shall stand remitted to the Lok Adalat for passing a decision afresh in light of the observations entered above. The exercise of reconsideration shall be concluded with expedition and in any case not later than within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.