( 1 ) THE petitioner-appellant filed the present C. M. A. aggrieved by the order made by the Railway Claims Tribunal secunderabad at Taranaka, Secunderbad made in I. A. No. 499 of 2002 in O. A. A. No. 304 of 1999, dated 14-11-2002.

( 2 ) IT is stated that the appellant herein is the claimant in the above claim petition on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal. Secunderabad Bench and the appellant filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents on account of his son s death in railway accident occurred on 26-11-1999 with Salda Express at Khanna punjab, and the Railway Claims Tribunal allowed the claim in part and awarded rs. 4,04,000/- by way of compensation. It was further stated that initially the appellant-petitioner was permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 29,000/- out of the compensation awarded and the rest of the amount be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application seeking permission to withdraw an amount of rs. 3,00,000/- for purchasing a shop at kurnool and for other expenditure. The aforesaid Tribunal had permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,73,000/- with a direction that the said amount should be given to the vendor of the shop through the registrar at the time of registration of the property and that the appellant was also given liberty to file an application for further release. Accordingly, the appellant filed the present application with supporting evidence, seeking permission of the Tribunal to withdraw an amount of rs. 1,00,000/-, and the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

( 3 ) SRI A. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, counsel representing the appellant had drawn my attention to Section 18 (2) of the Railway claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as act in short ). The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to section 23 of the Act dealing with appeals and had submitted that as a person aggrieved with the impugned order, the present C. M. A. is preferred. The learned counsel explained that the reasons given by the appellant-petitioner, seeking permission to withdraw the amount are bona fide reasons, and hence, the dismissal of the application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, secunderabad Bench at Taranaka is totally unsustainable.

( 4 ) PER contra, Sri B. H. R. Chowdary, counsel representing respondents had submitted that in view of the guidelines laid down in a decision in The General Manager, kerala State Road Transport Corporation, trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, the Tribunals under the Act also have been following the same guidelines. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the guidelines which had been specified in the aforesaid decision.

( 5 ) HEARD both the counsel.

( 6 ) THE decision referred to is a case dealing with compensation for death in motor accident. But, however, the Apex court had laid down certain guidelines at para No. 17 and it may be appropriate to extract para No. 17 of the said Judgment. It is thus: in a case of compensation for death it is appropriate that the Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union carbide Corpn. , and others v. Union of india and others, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being flittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. In that case approving the judgment of the Gujarat High court in Muljibhal Ajarambhal Harijan and others v. United India Insurance Co. ,. Ltd. , and others, this Court offered the following guidelines: (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 Tribun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document