Supreme Court sets aside Tribunal & High Court decisions, directs full compensation payment to Appellants.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal and High Court's decisions. The entire compensation amount was directed to be withdrawn and paid to the Appellants without delay, considering their specific circumstances and the failure to properly assess the need for a long term fixed deposit. No costs were awarded in this case.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the release of compensation amount without insisting on long term fixed deposit as directed by the Tribunal, the application of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Susamma Thomas, and the failure of the Tribunal and High Court to consider the specific circumstances of the claimants in this case.

Release of Compensation Amount:
The Appellants, who were the legal heirs of the deceased victim of a motor accident, filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal initially awarded a sum which was later enhanced by the High Court. The Insurance Company deposited the compensation amount with the Tribunal. The Appellants requested the release of the entire amount without investing in long term fixed deposit, citing their education, financial stability, and urgent need for the funds. However, the Tribunal rejected their application, and the High Court upheld this decision without considering the specific circumstances of the claimants.

Application of Supreme Court Guidelines:
The Supreme Court had issued guidelines in the case of Susamma Thomas to safeguard the interests of claimants, especially minors, illiterates, and widows, regarding the investment of compensation amount. The guidelines allowed discretion for the Tribunal to release the amount without long term fixed deposit in certain cases, such as literate persons who can manage their finances. However, the Tribunals were observed to mechanically order investment in fixed deposits without considering individual circumstances, leading to injustice and hardship for claimants.

Failure to Consider Claimants' Circumstances:
In this case, the claimants were educated and financially stable individuals, including a retired Superintendent and degree holders. They urgently needed the compensation for maintenance, construction, and providing shelter to family members. Despite these specific circumstances detailed in their application, the Tribunal and High Court did not consider these aspects while rejecting the request for withdrawal without long term fixed deposit. The Supreme Court found that the claimants' circumstances warranted the release of the entire compensation amount without delay.

Conclusion:
Considering the specific circumstances of the claimants and the failure of the Tribunal and High Court to properly assess the need for long term fixed deposit, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The impugned orders were set aside, and the entire compensation amount was directed to be withdrawn and paid to the Appellants without further delay. No costs were awarded in this matter.

---