Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.4.17 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 42/09 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu, rejecting an application preferred by the claimant for premature release of the amount kept in the FDR in terms of the award passed in her favour.

2. The application preferred as aforesaid, has 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 the Jaipur Bench of this Court dated 10.3.14 rendered in the matter of Kapil Lodha vs. The Judge, MACT, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 300/2009.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present petition stands covered by a decision of this Court dated 10.5.17 rendered in the matter of Vimla and Another vs. Learned Judge, Accidental Claims Tribunal, Churu, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3590/2017 along with connected matter.

4. In Vimla's case (supra), this Court after due consideration of the provisions of Rule 10.22 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, has set aside the similar order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu and the directions have been issued to the Tribunal to decide the applications preferred on behalf of the petitioners on the merits in accordance with law. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

13. Indisputably, while dealing with the issue with regard to pre mature release of the FDR in Kapil Lodha's case (supra), the provisions of Rule 10.22 of the Rules were not brought to the notice of the court. In the considered opinion of this court, even where no liberty is given by the Tribunal while passing the award to the claimants to apply for withdrawal of amount pre maturely in case of emergency, keeping in view of provisions of Rule 10.22 (4) of the Rules, on an application being made on behalf of the claimants for varying the order passed by the Tribunal as to distribution of any sum paid as compensation or as to manner in which some payable to any such dependent is to be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with, the Tribunal is empowered to vary such order for sufficient cause as it thinks fit in the circumstances of the case. Thus, the applications preferred by the claimants for pre mature release of the FDRs on account of changed circumstances and emergent need as pleaded could not have been dismissed by the Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction.

14. Undoubtedly, while passing an order for disbursement of the award amount, the Tribunal has to be keep in view the overall interest of the claimants but while dealing with the amount of compensation, need and wishes of the claimants should also be kept in view inasmuch as, ultimately, the amount of compensation belong to them. Suffice it to say that an application preferred by the claimants for varying the order passed as to disbursement of the award amount needs to be considered by the Tribunal in each case on merits, keeping in view, the larger interest of the claimants.

15. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The order impugned order dated 10.3.17 passed in Motor Accident Miscellaneous Case Nos. 44/16 and order dated 9.2.17 passed in Motor Accident Miscellaneous Case No. 71/15 and 13/15, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu, are quashed. The applications preferred by the petitioners herein shall stand restored to the files of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to decide the applications on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is also allowed in the terms indicated above.