The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to protect the interest of the claimants, especially minors, and ensure that the compensation amount is not frittered away. The court emphasized the importance of considering the welfare of minor claimants and the conditions to be imposed while investing the compensation amount in long term fixed deposits.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners for modification of award dated 13.10.2014 has been dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the petition, are that husband of petitioner No.1, namely, Mangal Singh and father of petitioners No.2 to 4 died in a road accident on 09.09.2011, when he was coming back to his house, the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing No.RJ-14-GB-8927, which was being driven by respondent No.1, struck with motorcycle from its back. An FIR No.195 dated 10.09.2011 was registered against respondent No.1 under Sections 304-A, 279, 427 and 338 IPC. Petitioner no.1, being widow and minor children of deceased Mangal Singh, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (here-in-after referred to as the 'MACT'), Tarn Taran. Vide award dated 13.10.2014, a compensation amounting to Rs. 8,45,000/- was awarded in favour of the petitioners. As per order of the Tribunal, the amount of compensation was to be disbursed into equal share among all the claimants but the share of petitioners No.2 to 4 was ordered to be converted into Fixed Deposit Scheme in a Nationalized Bank and the same was to be released to them on attaining the age of majority. In terms of award dated 13.10.2014 passed by the MACT, Tarn Taran, an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- each was deposited in the name of petitioners No.2 to 4 for a period of ten years in Punjab and Sind Bank and petitioner No.1, being the mother, stood as guardian.

3. However, the MACT, Tarn Taran, while passing the award, overlooked the guidelines for payment of the interest amount directly to the claimant for the welfare of the children or for their study, therefore, an application was moved by the petitioners for modification of award dated 13.10.2014 passed by MACT, Tarn Taran but the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.10.2016, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while passing the award, the Tribunal has overlooked the guidelines framed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in cases titled as Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others 1994 AIR (SC) 1631, Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India 1991(4) SCC 584 and Muljibhai v. United India Insurance Company (1982) 23(1) GLR 756. Learned counsel also submits that the amount is required for pursuing the study of minor children, so the amount of interest on the Fixed Deposit is necessary to be paid but the same has been declined. He also submits that petitioner No.1 is a semi literate lady, who has lost her husband at her early age of life and she has to support her three children. Not only the amount is required for household expenses but even for providing best education to the children and there is no other source of her income. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award passed by the MACT, Tarn Taran may be modified to the extent of payment of monthly interest directly on the FDR to the claimant deposited in the name of petitioners No.2 to 4 in the nationalized bank.

5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file.

6. Facts regarding death of husband of petitioner No.1 and passing of award by MACT, Tarn Taran are not disputed. It is also not disputed that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 8,45,000/- in favour of all petitioners, which is to be shared equally by all the claimants but the share of petitioners No.2 to 4 was ordered to be converted into Fixe