ELSYKUTTY DEVASSIA Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these original petitions common questions are raised. Therefore, I dispose them of by a common judgment

(2.) PETITIONERS were claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. In both these cases, claim for compensation was in respect of the death of the husband of each of the first petitioner. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are minors. Awards were passed in favour of the claimants. As petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 , were minors, compensation payable to them was apportioned and directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank. The first petitioner in each of the O.P. now contends that the interest payable on such deposit may be . ordered to be paid to the petitioners and that amount is required for the maintenance of the children. Application was filed before the M.A.C.T. In O.P. No. 10035 of 1994 vide Exh. P 3 order that claim was rejected and in O.P. No. 7807 of 1994 the very same claim was rejected by Exh. P 2 order. They are separately challenged in these original petitions

(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent case in Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), held that "the Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minors invested in long term deposits at least till the date of the minor attaining majority." It was further held that in all cases in which investment in long term fixed deposit is made it should be on condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian, as the case may be.