FAO No. 3351 of 2011 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 3351 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.5.2011 Yugeshwar Singh ... Appellant vs Union of India and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 17.8.2009 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby the amount of compensation of the share of the appellant, who is major, has been ordered to be deposited in a bank in FDR. Along with the appeal, applications for condonation of delay of 458 and 37 days in filing and refiling respectively have also been filed. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay in disposal of the present appeal, as otherwise also no relief has been claimed against the respondents. Delay in the present case is not material because substantive rights of the parties are not affected and the only relief claimed in the present appeal is for release of the share of the appellant deposited in the FDR. Accordingly, the delay in filing and refiling the appeal is condoned. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the father of the deceased. She states that the appellant is very poor person and in a very bad financial state. The deceased was the only child of the appellant and he has no source of income. There is no other earning FAO No. 3351 of 2011 -2- hand to support him. The Commissioner has ordered for deposit of the compensation amount of the share of appellant in the bank. The order of deposit of his share of compensation in bank is illegal in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in H. S. Ahammed Hussain vs Irfan Ahammed, 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 563 and this Court in FAO No. 1262 of 2010—Rameshwar Lal and others vs Union of India, decided on 11.5.2010, wherein it has been opined that the amount payable to an adult cannot be directed to be kept in a fixed deposit. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper- book. Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation coming to the share of the appellant, who is major, shall be paid to him in cash at his option instead of keeping the same deposited in the bank. No other point was raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 20.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge