The Court has the power and jurisdiction to adopt a procedure to oversee the enjoyment of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) ONE Malapati Ramulaiah died on September 25, 1980 at about

( 2 ) 30 hours, on Pedalakur Kaluvay road due to the rash and negligentdriving by the driver of the lorry bearing AAP 2448. His widow, the 1st respondent, minor son and father laid the claim under Section 110-A of the motor Vehicles Act (Act IV of 1939), for short, "the Act" for a sum of rs. 44,200/ -. The Tribunal below found that the death was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver ; the lorry dashed against a culvert resulting in the instantaneous death of the cleaner Ramulaiah aged 32 years. He was drawing a sum of Rs. 200/- towards salary and batta of Rs. 250/- per month as cleaner of the lorry. Accordingly, the loss of dependency was determined at Rs. 150/- per month and annual dependency is Rs. 18,000/- and applying 15 years multiplier, fixed the dependency at Rs. 27,000/ -. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 200/- towards transport charges; Rs. 1,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 3000/- towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs. 31,200/- was awarded with interest at 6% per annum. Out of the amount so awarded, a sum of Rs. 12,000/-was awarded to the widow ; Rs. 10,000/- to the son and Rs. 5,000/- to the father and the widow was directed to receive compensation towards consortium, funeral expenses and transport charges. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to the minor was directed to be deposited in a Fixed Deposit till he attains majority. The Insurance Company is assailing its liability thereof. 2. Sri Somayajulu, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that under Ex. B-1 insurance policy, the coverage is only of the liability of one cleaner and the driver ; no liability was undertaken by the appellant to indemnify the damages for the death of the second cleaner ; the deceased being the second cleaner, the contract casts no liability on the appellant to pay compensation. Therefore the grant of compensation is contrary to ex. B-l policy. The argument, though is apparently alluring, but lacks factual foundation. There is no evidence that the deceased was the second cleaner though the owner had engaged two cleaners. It is neither pleaded nor any evidence adduced nor argued before the Tribunal below on this point. Therefore, it being a fixed question of law and fact and factual matrix not having been laid in the Tribunal below, I over-rule the objection and hold that the deceased is the cleaner and the contract of insurance under Ex. B-1 covers the liability of the Insurance Company for the death of the deceased-cleaner and thereby the appellant is liable to pay the amount awarded.

( 3 ) THE more serious question raised by Sri Somayajulu is thatdespite the direction given by this Court, which has become a rule of practice before the Claims Tribunals that on awarding compensation to the dependents of the deceased or the victim and despite opening an account in the nearest nationalised bank or post office convenient to the parties and deposit thereof by the Court, the evil of sabotaging the salutory procedure envisaged has not been eradicated. Immediately on deposit the entire amount is being withdrawn annihilating the salutory effect of the evolved procedure to mitigate the hardship to the dependents of the loss of dependency. Therefore, appropriate procedure should be adopted by the Courts to see that the amount emanating from the nationalised Insurance companies- the public money, would reach the dependents and the dependents must reap the fruits thereof In that regard, he argued that the procedure of depositing the amount awarded in fixed deposits and to pay interest accrued thereon would nail the unhealthy tendency and the real beneficieries viz. , claimants would continue to reap the fruit of the compensation awarded by the claims tribunals.

( 4 ) SRI Venkatarama. Reddy, learned counsel for the claimantscontends that once the Tribunal awarded the amount it is the property of the claimants within the meaning o