JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment & Order dated 10.04.2019 in MAC case No.2602 of 2016. Hereafter, the appellant No. 1 shall be referred to as claimant No.1 and appellant No. 2 shall be referred to as claimant No.2. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to this appeal is that on 10.08.2016, at about 05:45 A.M, while one Tarap Ali was walking by side of the road, he was knocked down from behind by an Auto bearing registration No. AS-19-E-4214 resulting in his death on the spot. The claimants No. 1 & 2 are the son and wife of the deceased who filed an application under section 166 r/w section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The victim was carpenter-cum-cultivator alleged of having a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. The Opposite Party No.1 /United Insurance Co. Ltd., contested the case, denying the whole facts of the incident. The learned Tribunal had framed the following issues: 1. Whether on 10-08-2016, at about 05:45 A.M. at Barpeta Daulashai Road, Khongra under Tarabari Police Station, an accident has arisen due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Alto vehicle bearing registration No.AS-19-E-4214 on the part of its driver and whether the said accident has caused the death of Tarap Ali ? 2. If so, whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation, and if yes, what should be the quantum and who amongst the opposite parties, is liable to payment compensation amount? 4. Upon taking evidence adduce by the parties, both the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and the learned Tribunal passed the following Award directing the United Insurance Company Limited/respondent No.1 to “23... make payment of Rs.9,80,056/- within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the Judgment & Order. 4. Upon taking evidence adduce by the parties, both the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and the learned Tribunal passed the following Award directing the United Insurance Company Limited/respondent No.1 to “23... make payment of Rs.9,80,056/- within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the Judgment & Order. The compensation amount shall carry an interest at the bank rate for fixed deposit from 19.01.2019 (Record reveals years back but the claimant could adduce evidence only on 10.01.2019, as such, I do not find any reason to direct the insurance company concerned to pay interest from the date of filing the claim petition) per annum and in the event of failure to make the payment within the stipulated period the compensation amount shall bear additional interest @ 1 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 24. Rs.65,056/-shall be released to the claimant No.2 the wife of the deceased to meet the immediate exigencies. 25 Rs.15,000/-shall be released to the claimant No.1, son of the deceased. 26. The claimant No.1 shall open eighteen FDRs of Rs.50,000/-each in her name in any nationalized bank for a period of one to eighteen years. 27. To meet any urgent need for money, claimant or the guardian of the minors, as the case may be, shall make application to the Tribunal for permitting withdrawal. The Tribunal shall consider the application and pass appropriate order………” 5. Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not have any grievance with regard to the compensation amount but submits that the award requires to be modified wherein the learned Tribunal has directed that at para 26 of the Judgment & Order dated 10.04.2019 that ‘the claimant No.1 shall open eighteen FDRs of Rs.50,000/- each in her name in any nationalized bank for a period of one to eighteen years. That the impugned order at para 27 has also wrongly mentioned that ‘claimant or the guardian of the minors, as the case may be, shall make application to the Tribunal for permitting withdrawal.’ 6. For that the claimant No.1 is at present 26 years of age and opening eighteen FDRs in his name does not arise at all. The claimant No.2, the mother of the claimant No.1 is 38 years of age and there is no any minor dependant of the deceased victim. For that the claimant No.1 is at present 26 years of age and opening eighteen FDRs in his name does not arise at all. The claimant No.2, the mother of the claimant No.1 is 38 years of age and there is no any minor dependant of the deceased victim. At the time of filing the claim petition the age of claimant No.1 and claimant No.2 were reflected as 23 & 38 years respectively. That the learned tribunal has erred by mentioning ‘claimant or the guardian of the minors, as the case may be’ when there is no minor dependant of the victim. 7. Mrs. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand submits that only para 27 of the Judgment requires to be modified with respect to the words “the guardian of the minor” since it is admitted that the claimant No.1 and 2 were not minors. That, opening of eighteen FDRs of Rs.50,000/- each in her name for a period of 1 to 18 years need not be modified since the claimant 2 shall be enjoying the interest incurred by depositing the money in FDRs 8. The submission of the counsels for both the parties is considered. Neither of the counsels for the parties have tendered any citations in support of their submissions. It is noted that the learned Counsel for the appellant has not pressed upon any urgent need for release of the compensation amount as mentioned in their appeal petition. 9. From the submission of the learned counsels representing both the parties, this Court finds that the points to be looked into are whether the learned trial court erred in passing the impugned Judgment & Order at para 26 that ‘ the claimant No.1, to open eighteen FDRs of Rs.50,000/- each in her name in any nationalized bank for a period of one to eighteen years“, and at para 27 mention that ‘ claimant or the guardian of the minors, as the case may be’. shall make application to the Tribunal for permitting withdrawal,’ when there is no minor involved in this case, and therein require to be modified. 10. shall make application to the Tribunal for permitting withdrawal,’ when there is no minor involved in this case, and therein require to be modified. 10. On consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the documents on record, this court finds that, firstly, no reason or basis is mentioned in the impugned order as to why the claimant no.1 should open eighteen FDRs of Rs.50,000/- in her name for a period of one to eighteen years. Secondly, ambiguity is created by referring to the person against whom the FDRs are to be opened by using the term “her”. The counsel for the appellant has interpreted that ‘her’ refers to the claimant no.1/son of the victim, if that be the case, the claimant no.1 who was then aged 23 yrs and was not a minor, therefore, opening eighteen FDRs of Rs.50,000/-each in his name for a period of one to eighteen years may not be sustainable. However, since the term ‘her’ (Female gender) is used, the learned tribunal could be referring to the wife of the victim/claimant No2, but if this be the case, no explanation is given as to why her son, claimant no.1 should act as her guardian by opening eighteen FDRs of Rs.50,000/-each in her name for a period of one to eighteen years. Fourthly, the learned tribunal, when there is no any minor in this case mentions that ‘claimant or the guardian of the minors, as the case may be shall make application to the Tribunal for permitting withdrawal’. 11. No doubt the Apex court has laid down guidelines regarding the deposits of compensation and it’s payments to the claimants in General manager, Kerala State Road transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176 however such reference was not made by the learned tribunal. 12. Further, the Apex Court in AV Padma vs. R. Venugopal reported in 2012(3) SCC 378 has held that the guidelines are not to be followed rigidly and held as follows “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 others 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. “ 13. In view of the above observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in AV Padma vs. R. Venugopal (supra) and considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this court is of the considered view that the impugned portion of the order dated 10.04.2019 stating that “ the claimant No.1, to open eighteen FDRs of Rs.50,000/- each in her name in any nationalized bank for a period of one to eighteen years” and the portion that mentions “ claimant or the guardian of the minors, as the case may be”, appear to be made in a mechanical manner without due application of mind while passing this order. 14. For the aforesaid reasons I find that the mentioned impugned portions of order dated 10.04.2019 are liable to be modified. 15. In view of the above discussions, this court finds it fit to remand the matter back to the MACT No.2 Kamrup(M) for the learned Presiding officer to make the necessary modifications in the above-mentioned portions of the Judgment & Order dated 10.04.2019, giving clarity as to who is to receive the compensation amount. The learned tribunal shall also, by referring to the guidelines and principals laid down by the Apex court in General manager, Kerala State Road transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas (supra) and AV Padma vs. R. Venugopal (supra) examine whether it would be in the larger interest of the claimant to put the compensation amount in fixed deposits, if so, the longevity of period in the impugned order may also be re-examined, whether the period ‘one to eighteen years’ would actually be beneficial and be in larger interest of the claimant/beneficiary. 16. 16. The learned tribunal shall also modify the portion mentioning ‘claimant/or the guardian of the minors’ as there are no minor dependants of the victim in the instant case. 17. It is further directed that the learned Tribunal shall complete the whole exercise of effecting the necessary clarity and modification on the impugned Judgment & Order dated 10.04.2019 in MAC Case No.2602 o 2016 within 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the LCR which is to be immediately sent back to the tribunal. Both the parties are to appear before the learned Tribunal, MACT No. 2, Kamrup (M) on 13.05.2022 for any further steps, if any. 18. Accordingly, the present MAC Appl. No.449 of 2019 is allowed with the above directions. 19. MAC Appl. No.449 of 2019 thus stands disposed of.