ORDER : ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 18700 OF 2022, 18701 OF 2022, 18703 OF 2022 AND 18704 OF 2022 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Kushal A. Desai, who submits that Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2 of 2022 was instituted on the basis that on 01.12.2001, the husband of the claimant No. 1 and father of other claimants were traveling in a Jeep bearing Registration No. GJ-17-A-8764 as occupants. The respondent No. 1 was driving the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and at about 16.30 hours, when the Jeep was passing through the outskirts of Village Rachva, it turned turtle due to excessive speed and the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the Claim Petition was re-numbered as M.A.C.P. No. 506 of 2017 and came to be decided on 20.07.2019. The petition remained pending for long period of time, i.e. 17 years, 6 months and 19 days. The widow was looking after her three children and maintained them without any monetary support, since the compensation amount could not be decided earlier. 3. It is further submitted that as per the judgment and award on 20.07.2019, Rs. 3,55,120/- was granted together with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Accordingly, the amount was disbursed in the ratio of 30% - 70% qua claimants No. 1 to 5 and the ratio of the amount fell in the share of claimant No. 6, being a minor was deposited in the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for a period of 5 years or till the minor attains majority. 4. It is also submitted that since the claimants are residing together and since their house is very old they would like to get the same renovated and they have prayed for premature encashment of the FDR lying in their name, which was deposited as per the order of the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the petitioner had produced the House Tax Receipt, Copy of assessment by Panchayat, estimate for construction and copy of the proposed building plan. Inspite of that, the learned Tribunal disagreed to believe it observing that the documents did not prove that the house of the petitioners is in a dilapidated condition and requires renovation/reconstruction. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner had produced the House Tax Receipt, Copy of assessment by Panchayat, estimate for construction and copy of the proposed building plan. Inspite of that, the learned Tribunal disagreed to believe it observing that the documents did not prove that the house of the petitioners is in a dilapidated condition and requires renovation/reconstruction. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the observations of the Tribunal dated 19.07.2022 made in MACMA No. 33 of 2022 to 37 of 2022 and has submitted that the observations are unusual which is not even in accordance with any of pleadings of the petitioners or even on the facts noted in the Motor Accident Claims Petition. It is therefore, submitted that the rejection is bad in law since it is on inconsistent observations and the M.A.C.P. was on the basis of death of deceased and not on injured claimants. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken care to refer to the facts of the application rather has out-rightly rejected the application. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the date of filing of the petition which was in the year 2002 and in the year 2022, the petitioners have claimed for premature encashment of the FDR on the ground for renovating and re-constructing the dilapidated house. 6. The claimants No. 1 to 5 of M.A.C.P. No. 506 of 2017 (Old M.A.C.P. No. 2 of 2022) have prayed for premature encashment of the FDR on the ground of construction of the dilapidated house. Today, the petitioner appearing in the each/respective petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 18700 of 2022 - Badliben Ditiabhai Palas, Special Civil Application No. 18701 of 2022 - Javsingbhai Ditiabhai Palas, Special Civil Application No. 18703 of 2022 - Savinsingbhai Ditiabhai Palas and Special Civil Application No. 18704 of 2022 - Rajubhai Ditiabhai Palas are present before this Court. 7. An additional Affidavit of Savsingbhai Ditiabhai Palas is presented before this Court wherein Savsingbhai has stated that he alongwith his brothers and mother are staying in the house as a joint family, which is running in his name. It is further submitted that the brothers and mother have a right in the family property. 7. An additional Affidavit of Savsingbhai Ditiabhai Palas is presented before this Court wherein Savsingbhai has stated that he alongwith his brothers and mother are staying in the house as a joint family, which is running in his name. It is further submitted that the brothers and mother have a right in the family property. The Affidavit of Savsingbhai alongwith the Aadhar Car of the brother/s and mother is taken on record. According to him, one of his brothers - Babubhai Ditiabhai Palas has separated from them. 8. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma and Others vs. R. Venugopal and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 378 to contend that the Tribunal is required to give a thoughtful consideration to the genuine requirements of the claimant and should avoid mechanical approach ignoring the object and spirit of the Act. A.V. Padma’s case (supra) refers to the guidelines issued in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 . In Susamma Thomas’s case (supra), while approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1982 (1) GLR 756 , the Apex Court has offered the following guidelines: “(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be 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 ruse to withdraw money. 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 semiliterate 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 considerations, the and Tribunal in such other 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.” 9. (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.” 9. Thus, in the case of A.V. Padma (supra), the guideline issued in the case of Susamma Thomas and Others (supra) has been carried forward to hold that discretion of the Tribunal be exercised to the need of the applicant. The learned Tribunal is required to give relaxation by not adopting a pedantic approach of investing the money in a long term FDR. In the case of A.V. Padma (supra), it was held that a rigid stand should not be taken while considering an application seeking release of the money and/or ordering the amount to be invested in long term FDR’s. 10. Here in the present case, the Claim Petition was numbered as M.A.C.P. No. 2 of 2002 and thereafter, it was re-numbered as M.A.C.P. No. 506 of 2017 and came to be decided on 20.07.2019. 11. The Court has taken into consideration, the long period of process for finalizing the matter, the need of the petitioners for having a house with suitable facilities, the present house which is in a dilapidated condition and the petitioners’ need for the compensation amount for repairing of the same. A copy of the proposed plan and the estimate for constructing the house by Jaydeep C. Baman and Associates, Dahod has been annexed. Since all the above petitioners are staying together, this Court deems it fit to grant the total amount lying in the Fixed Deposit Receipt with the interest as per the following details: Name of the Petitioner Fixed Deposit No. and Date Fixed Deposit Amount Bank Badliben Ditiabhai Palas 273754, dated 18.03.2020 Rs. 1,67,451/- Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank, Godhra Branch Rajubhai Ditiabhai Palas 273755, dated 18.03.2020 Rs. 83,726/- -do- Savsingbhai Ditiabhai Palas 273756, dated 18.03.3020 Rs. 83,726/- -do- Javsingbhai Ditiabhai Palas 273757, dated 18.03.2020 Rs. 83,726/- -do- 12. The petitions stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Direct Service is permitted. ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18702 OF 2022 1. In Special Civil Application No. 18702 of 2022, the petitioner (Sabuben D/o Ditiabhai Palas) is the sister of the brothers and daughter of the mother. 83,726/- -do- Javsingbhai Ditiabhai Palas 273757, dated 18.03.2020 Rs. 83,726/- -do- 12. The petitions stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Direct Service is permitted. ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18702 OF 2022 1. In Special Civil Application No. 18702 of 2022, the petitioner (Sabuben D/o Ditiabhai Palas) is the sister of the brothers and daughter of the mother. On a query raised by the Court, it is submitted that the daughter is already married and was a minor at the time of filing of the claim petition. 2. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition which is filed by the daughter of the deceased, though she has shown her willingness to grant the amount of her share which is lying in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt for the construction of the dilapidated house. 3. Hence, learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. 4. Permission as prayed for is granted. 5. This petition is disposed of as withdrawn.