JUDGMENT : Sri. Sreejith, the son of the petitioners herein, was a constable in the Border Security Force. He lost his life on 16.11.2010 when the car in which he was traveling was mowed down by a KSRTC bus. He left behind his wife and the petitioners herein. 2. O.P.(MV) No.161 of 2012 was filed by the legal heirs claiming compensation. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte and Exhibit P1 award was passed on 26.7.2013, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.24,89,064/- by way of compensation together with interest. Later, at the instance of the respondents, the ex parte award was set aside on condition that the 2nd respondent deposits a sum of Rs.12 Lakhs. The matter was proceeded with and Exhibit P2 award was passed on 29.8.2017, awarding the very same amount awarded earlier together with interest. Out of the sum of Rs.12 Lakhs which was deposited, the wife was held entitled to 50 %, the 2nd petitioner herein, who is the mother, was held entitled to 30% and the 1st petitioner herein, the father of the deceased was held entitled to 20%. The wife was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1 lakh and the petitioners herein were permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/-each. The balance amount was ordered to be deposited in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit for a period of five years. The bank was directed to pay monthly interest to the petitioners. 3. According to the petitioners, when Exhibit P1 award was set aside on the application filed by the 2nd respondent, a sum of Rs.12 Lakhs was ordered to be remitted. The said amount was deposited in a Nationalised Bank on 26.07.2013 for a period of five years, which period elapsed in the year 2018. Exhibit P2 award was later passed on 29.8.2017, and the Tribunal, without taking note of the earlier deposit, nevertheless directed the respondents to deposit the amount for a further period of five years. It is contended that the petitioners are senior citizens, the 1st petitioner being 70 years of age, and the 2nd petitioner having crossed 60 years. They are sick and ailing and require funds urgently. In the said circumstances, they approached the Tribunal and filed Exhibit P3 and P4 applications with a prayer to release that portion of the amount, to which they are entitled to, in its entirety. They are sick and ailing and require funds urgently. In the said circumstances, they approached the Tribunal and filed Exhibit P3 and P4 applications with a prayer to release that portion of the amount, to which they are entitled to, in its entirety. However, the Tribunal by the impugned orders directed to credit only 30% of the amount to which they are entitled to together with interest by Electronic Funds Transfer. It is contended that the 1st petitioner in the Original Petition, who is the wife of late Sreejith, has executed a power of attorney in favor of the 1st petitioner herein permitting him to withdraw the amounts covered under Exhibit P2. 4. Impugning Exts.P5 and P6 orders, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P5 and P6 orders passed by the Tribunal to the extent it disallowed the prayer sought for by the petitioners and also for a direction to the Tribunal to allow Exhibit P3 and P4 application as prayed for and to release the entire amounts to which the petitioners are entitled to. 5. I have heard Sri K.P. Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri P.C. Chacko, the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Others [ AIR 1994 SC 1631 ] had issued extensive guidelines in order to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. The guidelines are extracted below for easy reference. "(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 guidelines are extracted below for easy reference. "(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 ease 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 and strata of society to which the claim ant 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 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." It was ordered that the guidelines are to be borne in mind by the Tribunals in the cases of compensation in accident cases. 7. As per the guidelines, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. In the case of literate persons, the Tribunal was directed to 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. (See Padma A.V. and Others v. R. Venugopal and Others [ 2012 (3) SCC 378 ]. 8. As held by the Apex Court in Padma (supra) 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. In the case on hand, the petitioners are senior citizens and they are educated persons. 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. In cases where 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 are not to be ordered as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court. The genuine requirements of the claimants are to be considered by the Tribunal with sympathy and concern and appropriate orders are required to be passed. The genuine requirements of the claimants are to be considered by the Tribunal with sympathy and concern and appropriate orders are required to be passed. In the case on hand, the petitioners had clearly narrated the hardships that were being faced by them due to lack of funds and they had also reiterated that there was no one to look after them in their old age. However, their request was rejected by a one-line order. I have no doubt in my mind that the impugned order will result in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. I am of the opinion that there was no need for keeping the compensation amount in a long term fixed deposit in the facts and circumstances. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the uncontroverted averments in the application of the appellants referred to above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the prayer of the appellants. Hence the impugned orders of the Tribunal is set aside. The prayer in the application of the appellants for release of the amount, to the extent to which they are entitled to, and which has been invested in long term deposits will stand allowed. The entire amount of compensation to which they are entitled to as per the Award passed by the Tribunal shall be withdrawn and paid to the appellants without any further delay. This Original Petition is allowed.