The judgment established that tribunals must consider the specific circumstances of claimants when deciding on premature withdrawals from compensation funds, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach.

This order of mine shall decide two O.P.s bearing O.P.(MAC) Nos.9 and 10 of 2023 arising out of the order dated 19.01.2022 in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 in O.P.(MV) No.23 of 2017 for rejecting the application of the parents of the deceased for premature withdrawal of the amount in fixed deposits. Both the petitioners are the claimants in O.P.No.23 of 2017 filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on account of the death of Mr.Muhammed Shafeeq in a road trafÏc accident on 26.03.2016. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) vide award dated 16.10.2019 assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs.57,65,000/- (Rupees Fifty seven lakh sixty five thousand only) under various heads, along with the interest at the rate of 7% on the amount from the date of petition till the date of deposit with a direction to the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each directly to Nasreen petitioner No.1 and Jameela Petitioner No.4 in O.P.(MV) No.23 of 2017; Rs.2,00,000/- directly to the petitioner in O.P.(MAC)No.9 of 2023, Mammi, mother of the deceased; balance 40% was ordered to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank as fixed deposit in the name of Muhammed Shezin, the minor child till he attains his age of majority; 30% in the name of Nasreen for a period of five years and 15% each in the name of the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in OP(MV) No.23 of 2017. I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 have been filed by the claimants for release of the amount in the FDR to the extent of 15% by giving details of the FDR on account that the money is required for repair of the house, by enclosing a copy of the certificate dated 07.12.2021 of Chairman of the Municipality, Valancherry. It was stated that all the family members are living in a house which is in a dilapidated condition and liable to collapse at any moment. Details of the FDR were also given. Learned MACT dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 19.01.2022, which is extracted hereinbelow:

“Common Order passed in IA3/2021 and IA

4/2021 in OP(MV)23/2017.

These petitions are filed by the parents of the deceased for premature withdrawal of the amount in fixed deposit.

The reason state for money is repair of their house. But it is to be noted that for the very same purpose they were allowed to withdraw Rs.4,00,000/- each ie,; total Rs.8,00,000/- what all are the works done with that money, what is the balance work etc., are not stated. Apart from a letter from chairman of Municipality that petitioners require money for house construction, there is o convincing material to show that petitioner actually spent the earlier amount for the house repair and still needs money for completing the work. Under these circumstances I am not inclined to release the amount prematurely. Hence both these petitions are dismissed.”

2. The order do not discuss neither the contention nor the certificate in extenso which is against the judgment of honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1095 of 2012 Padma A.V. and Others Vs. V.Venugopal and Others decided on 27.01.2012 wherein, certain conditions, considering the predicament of the claimants for release of the amount lying in deposit, have been laid down.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance company submitted that the order is perfectly illegal and justified and do not require any interference.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

5. In paragraph No.5 of the judgment cited supra, it was laid as under:

“5. Thus, sufÏcient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in