ORDER : 1. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that a prayer was made before the Tribunal for premature withdrawal of the FDR amount which was placed as per the order of the Court on the award being passed in MACP no.135/2019. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the claimants have prayed for money for construction of the house since the house had fallen down and requires construction and the construction work is in progress as the building contractor has given an estimate of Rs.10,40,000/-, but the learned Tribunal was not impressed by the documents placed on record i.e. photographs of the house and estimate letter issued by Shri Sahajanand Building Contractor. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the learned Tribunal has observed that the documents in the form of revenue record has not been produced by the claimants to prove the ownership and occupancy of the property and the terms and conditions between the claimants and the contractor had not been laid down and the learned Tribunal considered that there was no cogent evidence regarding the ownership, occupancy and the agreement regarding the terms and conditions with the contractor for the construction upon the claimants’ property and hence, rejected to release the fixed deposit amount. 2. Mr. Bhalodi relied upon the decision in the case 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. 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 & Ors., reported in (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., reported in 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., reported in 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 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 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. 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.” 4. The claimants are widow and two major sons. MACP was filed on the death of Punambhai Sindhva. As per the details, an amount of Rs.4,43,058/- is lying in the FDR in the name of Champaben Punambhai Sindhva and both the sons have been given an amount of Rs.1,69,405/- each. The claimants are widow and two major sons. MACP was filed on the death of Punambhai Sindhva. As per the details, an amount of Rs.4,43,058/- is lying in the FDR in the name of Champaben Punambhai Sindhva and both the sons have been given an amount of Rs.1,69,405/- each. Since the amount is necessary for the construction of the house, the learned Tribunal should have appreciated the genuine need of the claimants and should not have if at all had doubt regarding the ownership or the occupancy of the property could have called upon the claimants to produce the same. The Tribunal without giving any notice on the ground observing that revenue records have not been proved for the ownership and occupancy of the property has rejected the application. It is required to be noted that it is not the case for deciding the ownership of the land on which the claimants have proposed to build the house. Relevant photographs are produced on record to prove the genuineness of their prayer. The estimate given by Shri Sahajanand Building Contractor is also produced on record. The Tribunal insisted upon the terms and conditions agreed upon by the claimants and the contractor which would be a private dealing between them. Denial of money for the genuine need may lead to hardship to the claimants where for the construction of their house, they would have to take the support of private loan lenders. Since the application has been supported by reasonable documents which prima facie speaks to support the claim of the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, let total amount lying in FDR no.374700RA00005063 be paid to Nareshbhai Punambhai Sindhva upon proper verification of identity and FDR no.374700RA00005054 be paid to Rajeshbhai Punambhai Sindhva upon proper verification of identity and 50% amount lying in FDR no.374700RA00005072 be paid to Champaben Punambhai Sindhva upon proper verification of identity and rest 50% of the amount lying in the FDR be continued in the name of Champaben Punambhai Sindhva for the remaining period. The Bank concerned is directed to pay the amount along with interest so accrued on the said FDRs to the claimants on receipt of this order. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in the above terms.