1. These writ petitions are directed against order dated 10.3.17 passed in Motor Accident Miscellaneous Case No. 44/16 and order dated 9.2.17 passed in Motor Accident Miscellaneous Case No.71/15 & 13/15, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu (for short “the Tribunal”), rejecting the applications preferred by the claimants for pre mature release of the amount kept in FDRs in terms of the awards passed in their favour.

2. The applications preferred as aforesaid by the claimants seeking pre mature release of the FDRs have been rejected by the Tribunal solely on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the award. In this regard, the reliance has been placed on a decision of Jaipur Bench of this court dated 10.3.14 rendered in the matter of “Kapil Lodha vs. The Judge, MACT” (S.B.C. Writ Petition No.300/09).

3. In Kapil Lodha’s case (supra), a coordinate Bench of this court while dealing with the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in entertaining an application seeking pre mature release of the FDR, relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & Ors.”, AIR 1994 SC 1631, observed that if in a given case while passing the award, the liberty is extended by the Tribunal to the claimants to apply for withdrawal in case of emergency the claimants may apply for withdrawal of the amount but in case where no such liberty is given no application for direction to release the amount pre maturely can be entertained by the Tribunal unless the Tribunal is having power to review its judgment/order. Relying upon a decision of this court in the matter of “Smt. Imliya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors.” (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.2404/2005), the court held that the Tribunal is not having any power to review its judgment/order/award and therefore, cannot pass any order contrary to the directions in the award.

4. In Imliya’s case (supra), a coordinate Bench of this court while dealing with the issue relating to the power of the Tribunal to review its award while taking into consideration inter alia the provisions of Rule 10.27 & 10.28 of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (for short “the Rules” held:

“The Tribunal as constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act while dealing with the claim application even when having the trappings of the Civil Court, its jurisdiction is specifically defined by the statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder. So far as the powers of the Civil Court that are vested in the Claims Tribunal and procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal are concerned, such aspects have specifically been delineated in Section 169 of the Act and Rule 10.27 and Rule 10.28 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990. Significant it is to notice that the provisions of Section 114 CPC or Order XL VII Rule 1 and CPC, relating to powers of review have not, as such been made applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, had no jurisdiction to deal with a so-called review application moved under Order XL VII CPC and the impugned. Order, passed on a so-called review application, cannot be upheld.”

5. It is true that the statutory provisions do not confer any power upon the Tribunal to review its own judgment/order/award. But then, the issue regarding the power of the Tribunal to vary the order as to distribution of any sum paid as compensation or as to manner in which sum payable to any such dependent is to be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with needs to be examined yet another perspective.

6. As per provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”), after holding an inquiry into the claim, the Tribunal is required to make an award determining amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and thus, the Tr