K.G. Balakrishnan, J.@mdashIn both the original petitions common questions are raised. Therefore, I dispose of them by a common judgment.
2. Petitioners were claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In both these cases, claim for compensation was in respect of death of the husband of each of the first petitioner. Petitioners 2 to 4 are minors. Awards were passed in favour of the claimants. As petitioners 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. 10035/94 vide Ext. P3 order that claim was rejected and in O.P. 7807/94 the very same claim was rejected by Ext. P2 order. They are separately challenged in this original petition.
3. I heard the petitioner''s Counsels. It is argued that the minor children are to be maintained and for giving proper education money is required and the first petitioner is unable to meet all expenses. The tribunal rejected the contentions for the reason that the amounts deposited in the name of minors belong to them and the first petitioner as their natural guardian of them has no right to get that amount. It is true that the compensation amount exclusively belongs to them. In both the cases deceased persons were employed and they were looking after the affairs of the children. In O.P. 7807/94, the first petitioner is a house wife and has no independent source of income. In O.P. 10035/94 the first petitioner is employed but she contends that her income is not sufficient to maintain the children properly. The first petitioner being the natural guardian is interested in the welfare of the children. The welfare of the children is the paramount consideration. So long as there is no suspicion that the interest accrued to the principal will not be used for other purpose than the maintenance of children, I find no legal impediment in allowing the natural guardian to withdraw the interest. Otherwise the mother would find it difficult to maintain the children and it would ultimately affect their future. Even though it is minors property, this Court can allow the natural guardian to withdraw the interest under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
4. The honourable Supreme Court in a recent case in K.S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas 1994 (1) KLT 67 : 1994 (2) KLJ 167 held that, "The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors, invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor 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 investments 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.
5. Even though there is no stipulation in the award passed by the Tribunal, I direct that the first petitioner in each of these cases be permitted to withdraw the interest payable on the amounts credited in the name of petitioners 2 to 4 in each of these cases, by way of fixed deposits. The orders passed by the-Tribunal are set aside.
6. The O.Ps. are allowed.
