I THE HIGH COURT OF KAR ATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIE WIPE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 1998 BEFORE THE ONBLE MR.JUETICE H,N.NARAYAN C,R.P.iO.1079 of 1998 1, Smt .J ,Javashree I aged anout 39 yrs. 2, Master Ctiranjeevi s/o. Late J. Ba ararr ageci aix>ut 15 ysars 3 Master Brikantl s/o. Late J.Balaraw No.2 ara 3 beinci minors represented by t eir Mother and Natutal guardian Smt ,J.Jayahree All are residing at No.353 Indiranaoar (Motap anapalya/Appa— readypalya) Ban alore,560 038. By ri,K.R,Asrok Kumar — dv ) — vs , Petitioners T e Djvi’ nal Controller B,T,S, Divjsjn (K.B.k.T.C,) K,H,Roaa 0 hanttin uar Braoe 6 027 ond t file —3 19 8 p sed Acid’ C ty C2vji Br ze sis f: P’ sciigt ii ,l1 ± CP oai t t € orde MVC N .2259 93 he XI I uci arci Rrci r Mi T ‘a’oia’ rci I I- a n ti r t5 iocif 1± rd r a ‘J ,P, e cci r riad iung n f € follow ig -dmissi i tocla RU ER , ,, —. 2 — 0 R D E R The first. petitioner is the wife of the dsceased, Thern Tribunal has awarded a few iakI..i of rupees on account of the death of the husband of the f irst petiti ner and father of petitioners 2 and 3. The Tribunal has directed the amount to be deposited in a Nationaised Bank j: the name of the petitioners to and/release only Rs.4 1 000/— in the name of the first petitioner. An application was mode by the first petitioner to release, the entire share that was granted to her for the reasons stated n the affidavjt. The Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that no suc‘h affidavit was filed by the petitioners when the award was passed on 16—3—1998 by the Tribunal. 2. In the affidavit, the first petitioner has listed the item.s.. under which she requires for the petitioner certain amount • The learned counsel/has produced before this Court the appilcation for renewal of the .:licence of the provision store by the first petitioner and the major portion of the —3— amount is required for investinc the same for business a 3, The object of the award of cpensatlon is ultimately to t::elp the LR’s of the decee.sed, No purpose will be served by keeping In any Bank or investing or also by keeping in any other securities unless it is made useful to the needy in time, No doubt the Courts are directed to take special precaution while passing the order and dispersal of the amount in M,A,cT, casesa It is only a caution which the courts are required to exercise having regard to the nature of requirement of the parties, it is not a rule of law in all cases to deposit the award amcunt in a nationalised bank, Ultin:ately, the Court has to consider the needs of the parties by cons idering the affidavits filed by them and the circumstances under which they done so, Otherwise, the natty will be at the mercy of the Courts for a pEnny every tiRe, The judament of the Supreme Court in this recard is only to pass order in this sense, Therefore, the trial Court is not , a 4 S —4— co . rrect in rejecting the: request of the first petitioner. In my opinion, the first petitioner is entitled to receive the amount pleaded by her, However, the amount of petitioners 2 and 3 who are minors Cannot be released, 4. it is true that the Court will have to cirect aeposit of the amount in any Nationalised Bank, it is not the amount of the Goverrinent that the Court is directing to deposit n a Na..tionalised Bank, This amount is legally meant for the persons who are likely to suffer on account of the accident, It is stated that by depositing the amount in Vyshya Bank Ltd., the petitioner will get half a percent more interest ti.an what the pre sent Bank is offering and it is very beneficial to the petitioner. Owing to these reasons, it is not up to the Court to refuse transfer of the amount to the Bank requested by the petitioner. Courts are not helping the Government or any Nationalised Bank or anybody else except the parties themselves. and, therefore, the trial Court is now directed . a5e to deposit the said oun in Vyshya Dank, Uisoor Branch, Bangslore Revision is disposed of with the above observation. 3d,. JUDGE I rs/e