ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 15/03/2022 passed in the application being MACMA (FDR) No.105 of 2023 by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Panchmahal at Halol and direct the respondent no.1 to release fixed deposit amount pursuant to the order passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Panchamahal at Halol in MACP No.2909 of 2017 (Old MACP No.872 of 2016).

2. Mr. Jay G. Thaker, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the amount of compensation was granted to the injured claimant vide judgment dated 22/03/2022 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Panchmahal at Halol in MACP No.2909 of 2017 (Old MACP No.872 of 2016).

3. Mr. Thaker, learned advocate submitted that out of Rs.9,24,476/- with the interest payable of 9%, 30% was paid in cash while 70% was ordered to be invested in the FDR for a period of five years.

4. Mr. Thaker, learned advocate submitted that the insurance company was directed to deposit the amount within a period of one month from the date of the order. However, as observed by the learned Tribunal, the amount was placed in the FDR only on 19/01/2023. Such delay has not been caused because of any fault of the applicant. Learned Tribunal failed to observe that the compensation amount was not deposited in time for the amount to be placed in the FDR. The loss of interest on that period has not been considered by the Tribunal.

5. Mr. Thaker, learned advocate submitted that the prayer was made for the amount to be paid as the applicant’s son was to be married and for the medical needs. For the same, the relevant evidences at Mark-3/4 and Exh.-4 were produced on record.

6. Mr. Thaker, learned advocate submitted that the medical bills of Rs.5,56,441/- were proved before the learned Tribunal which itself proves the effect of accident on the physical health of the claimant.

7. Mr. Thaker, learned advocate submitted that during the pendency of the application, the marriage of the applicant’s son got conducted, however, the amount was borrowed from the relatives and friends so as to meet with the expenses.

8. Mr. Thaker, learned advocate submitted that at present the applicant is suffering from heart problem and the doctor has advised coronary angiography as early as possible and has prescribed medicines.

9. Mr. Thaker, learned advocate submitted that genuine need of the applicant was required to be appreciated by the learned Tribunal and his money should be paid for his medical needs.

10. In the case of A. V. Padma and others vs.R. Venugopal & Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 378, reference is made to the guidelines issued in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176 and observed as under: “….. In Susamma Thomas’s case (supra), while approving the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 1982 (1) GLR 756, the Apex Court has offered the following guidelines:-

“(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor be 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 Tribunal should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or immovable property such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw, etc., to earn a living, the Tribunal may consider such a request after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money;

(iii) In the case of semiliterate persons the Tribunal should ordinarily resort to the procedure set