ORDER : 1. Mr. Nishit A.Bhalodi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that on the death of the husband, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.220 of 2018 was filed by the widow, two minors and aged parents-in-law. Mr. Bhalodi stated that the amount of Rs.16,62,640/- was ordered and accordingly insurance company deposited the compensation amount. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the Tribunal had granted 30% of the cash amount and rest of 70% was placed in the FDR in accordance to the ratio of disbursement. 2. Advocate Mr. Bhalodi further submitted that the amount has been placed in the FDR for a period of five years and the claimant being the widow and has no other source of income, wanted the money which was falling in her share for irrigation purpose, and she wanted to dig well deeper, and to bear the expenses, had made prayer for the amount, but the same came to be rejected by the Tribunal considering that the cause could not fall under the category of emergency. 3. Advocate Mr. Bhalodi has placed reliance on the judgment of A.V. Padma & Ors. Vs. R. Venugopal & Ors., reported in (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. 3.1 The case of A. V. Padma & Ors. (supra) refers to the guidelines issued in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176 . In Susamma Thomas’s case (supra), while approving the judgment of this 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. 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 The expenses incurred by the guardian or next friend may, however, be allowed to be withdrawn; (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for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; (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 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.” 3.2 Further, in the case of A.V. Padma (supra), while appreciating the guidelines issued in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), it has been observed as under: “7. 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. 8. 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. 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. 9. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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.” 3.3 In the case of A.V. Padma (supra), the guidelines so issued in the case of Susamma Thomas’s case (supra), have been clarified. Hence, it could be said that sufficient discretion has been given to the tribunal to exercise, considering the need of the petitioner- claimant. In case of literate person, the Tribunal is required to give relaxation by not adopting pedantic approach of investing the money in long term FDR without recording reasons for investing the money in long term deposits. Hence, it could be said that sufficient discretion has been given to the tribunal to exercise, considering the need of the petitioner- claimant. In case of literate person, the Tribunal is required to give relaxation by not adopting pedantic approach of investing the money in long term FDR without recording reasons for investing the money in long term deposits. It has been observed in the decision in A. V. Padma (supra) that the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering, almost in all cases, the amount of compensation to be invested in long term FDRs. The deposited money are of the claimants. The literates can prudently exercise discretion, manage their funds and can individually decide about systematic planning for investing the money. 4. The Tribunal was required to consider the fact that widow had to take care of the minors, their education and their well being and had also spent money for their future development. The family owns agricultural property and the widow wants to develop the land for agricultural purpose, and wants to dig the well deeper so as to raise the level of water, and for that purpose had made prayer for pre- mature withdrawal stating that the cost would be Rs.3,00,000/-. 5. As per details, the amount in FDR No.281882 is placed in the fixed deposit for a period from 14.10.2021 to 14.10.2026, and the amount, which has been placed in the name of the applicant is Rs.5,99,511/-. 6. The widow would have to deal with the maintenance of the children and she stated in her application that well has been drought because of the soil and there is no inflow of water, and without water there is difficulty of providing water to the cattle as well as to irrigate their agricultural land. The need is very urgent for the maintenance of the family as well as for the cattle. 6.1 The Tribunal was required to observe the fact that the claimant widow has asked the money from her own share and not the money, which has been falling in the share of the parents-in-law. The money is of the claimant. The compensation amounts are granted for the motor vehicle accident to both the claimants in a condition that they would not suffer because of the family members and more specifically earning members of the family. The money is of the claimant. The compensation amounts are granted for the motor vehicle accident to both the claimants in a condition that they would not suffer because of the family members and more specifically earning members of the family. The money, which has been asked for is for the maintenance of the family, which includes minors and aged persons. The denial of the money for digging the well, which could be, to have the recourse for the water to assist the family, and to look after for the well being of other family members, is an urgent and emergent need. 7. In the result, the application is partly allowed. Let Rs.3,50,000/- be paid to the applicant from FDR and the rest of the amount be continued till the maturity period.